A Tree on Fire

The photo attached to this post was taken by my brother, John, in my family's side yard in Rutherford, NJ. When I saw it today, I went him the comment that it looks like the branches are on fire, and that the edges are lit up in orange.

The tree is a huge elm that has stood in our sideyard for much longer than I have been on this planet. For much longer than we have lived in the 100 year-old house on Mountain Way. The tree, if all goes well, will stand there for many more years, offering shelter to squirrels and birds, and shade for whoever stops beneath its limbs.

I have not been living in Rutherford since 2001. I have been living in Brazil since 2004, in a country which has been in the news for trees themselves. Big, big trees, that are being cut down at alarming rates. Yeterday's Folha de S. Paulo, Brazil's best daily, reported yesterday that two times the area of Monaco are cut down in the Amazon every day. That is correct. And truly depressing.

Unlike what many in the eco-world would report, none of that is for ethanol. Most of it is done to make space for cattle grazing, contruction, and charcoal. Some of it, especially in the ground zero state of Mato Grosso, is soy. And a huge, huge part of the lumbering, legal and illegal, is done by foreign companies. Just in Mato Grosso, over 160 non-Brazilian comanies operate.

So, Brazil, today's largest beef exporter, is lighting up and cutting down trees for your next steak. The huge majority of the cattle in the Amazon is shipped out of the country to the US, Japan and Europe. The price you pay for a hamburger, of course, does not include the destruction of the world's most important forest.

Notes from Underground...aka Brazil

São Paulo: The man picture to the right is not Al Gore. Obviously.
His name is Rajendra Pachauri and he is the Chairman of the
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control). He
just won the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Al Gore, and
everyone else at IPCC.

Last week, Estado de São Paulo, interviewed him about Brazil, the Amazon, Global Warming, and Ethanol. His comments were remarkable. I have taken some of that interview and translated it for anyone who cares. Here goes.

Q: The Brazilian government is having problems in monitoring the Amazon Rainforest. What can be done?

A: The Amazon is one of the greatest natural resources that the world depends on in the fight against climate change. But the Brazilian government's decisions, moreover those of the Brazilian people, need to be sovereign in the region. The Amazon is in Brazilian territory and no one can change that or question that reality.

Q: The environment, however, does not put into question that Brazilian sovereignty over the Amazon?

A: In no way. The international community needs to understand this and evaluate how to collaborate so that Brazil can maintain its coverage of the Amazon.

Q: How should the international community be involved with the Amazon in order to ensure its protection?

A: There are some options. One of them would be to negotiate an agreement for the protection of forests across the world. In this case, a type of value would be worked out for the conservation of the forest, and this value would provide for the resources needed to keep the wilderness intact, including the creation of alternative economies for the population of the region. And the richest countries could contribute financially to guarantee that the Amazon not be destroyed. obviously this is something that the governments need to negotiate and I cannot predict how this would occur. Certainly, it wouldn't be an easy compromise.

Q: You stated last week, upon being awarded the Nobel Prize, that the developing countries mustn't repeat , in their growth, the same mistakes that were made by the richest countries in the past. How then should we develop?

A: The development model needs to be completely remodeled. We know that the paradigm used by the developed countries in the last decades did not function in environmental terms and we will be feeling the effects of this for decades to come. What I said was that Brazil, India, and China can't repeat this model and find technologies and standards that ensure sustainable development. It would be in the interest of these developing countries to follow this new model. What is needed is a new world lifestyle, including diet. If I could give a recommendation, I would ask that the consumption of meat diminish. But questions like the use of water for irrigation and other aspects of life need to change.

Q: But the Brazilian government alleges that the cost is too high and now is not the time to put limits on the growth of the country.

A: The costs of mitigating the problems are not as much as they say. Beside this, we have the technical capacity to implement the changes. It is a fallacy to say that millions will lose their jobs if environmental requirements are put into place. We came to a conclusion that showed that the world would need to spend 0.6% of its collective GNP yearly to attack the crisis. In all, less than 3% would be needed...If not, we all suffer. In Latin America, the production of grains could fall 30% by 2080 if nothing is done. In Africa, the decrease could be 50% by 2020. The rationing of water, which now affects 12 million Latin-Americans, could reach 81 million by 2020.