Playing with the lung of the world

What do we know about the largest rainforest in the world? Find out more from the former Brazilian Minister of Environment, Marina Silva

In the Brazilian Amazon, between 2000 and 2008, 150,000 square kilometers of rainforest were cleared. Although deforestation have slowed since 2004, it will continue to be an issue. The top two causes for deforestation are cattle ranching and infrastructure.

Historically, cattle ranching is responsible for much of the deforestation in the Amazon. Between 1997 and 2003, land clearing for pastures increased. In that time, Brazil became the world's largest beef exporter. Four-fifths of this growth happened within the Amazon. Brazilian cattle production’s 80 growth in 2003 is also attributed to the exploitation of the Amazon rainforest's resources. Deforestation is also caused by road construction. Roads make logging and mining sites accessible and gives the rural poor a path to enter the Amazon. Then, poor and landless farmers are able to exploit the rainforest by using it as free land for subsistence agriculture. Logging roads is allowing colonists entry to the heart of the Amazon and they proceed to exploit the region for temporary agricultural lands. Satellite data in 2004 showed an increase in deforestation along the BR-163 road, a highway paved to help soy farmers get their crops to export markets.

Deforestation results in the loss of forest cover which disturbs the climate. Trees are absorbers of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Thus, living forests such as the Brazilian Amazon has a significant impact in the lobal carbon cycle. Substantially cutting the Brazilian Amazon has already affected Brazil. Brazil had the second most rapid growth in carbon emissions in Latin America at the rate of 220% between 1970 and 1977.


Globalization has caused national governments to abandon protection laws and regulations because of the need to be competitive. In Latin America, globalization has and still is driving a great deal of deforestation. Brazil is a prime example. There have been few protections for the environment on the vast forest reserves. Environmental regulations barely exist as a result of globalization. In an international struggle to remain competitive, many nations have lowered their standards. Former President Cardoso increased the maximum area of land landowners can use for commercial interests from 50% to 80%. This encouraged the poor farmers from the North to move to the Amazon for subsistence farming. His changed policies opened up the Amazon region to colonization. This effectively opened up the Amazon region. Brazil’s land costs are half of that of United States. Thus, foreign direct investment began to increase exponentially. Brazil’s competitive edge in comparative costs of production is helped by government incentives. In soybean farming, it was a success; supplied 10% of soybeans in 1970 to 50% of the global market by 1980s. Overall costs are lower for Brazilian production than for United States production which was Brazil’s main competition. The Brazilian government's planned transport infrastructure for the Amazon is designed to expedite and decrease costs for exporting the region's natural resources. 


Brazil: A Developing Country
We must first consider what developed countries have done to save the environment. Countries such as Canada and the U.S. have made attempts to stay competitive in the logging industry. Canada has employed the practice of dumping in selling below-market prices for timber from public lands. Its national government has provided subsidies in response to global competition. These nations focus primarily on competing internationally. Brazil, being a developing country, is more in need of developing a competitive and comparative advantage. Our abundance of natural resources is responsible for our economic growth. If we are no longer able to take advantage of the Amazon forest’s resources, we will need financial aid from developed countries to improve our environmental standard.

Avanca Brasil
The Brazilian government are implementing development activities under the provisions of Avanca Brasil (Advance Brazil). I fought against this development plan as I felt it will fuel more deforestation. It will pose new threats to the Amazon basin. Many infrastructure projects ranging this important ecological region is said to increase economic development through road paving, river channeling, and energy production. The Amazonian road network will benefit Brazil economically because it will encourage foreign investment in Brazil. Meanwhile, it will make the region more susceptible to forest destruction. What also shocks me is that key environmental agencies were excluded from planning these developments. The Ministry of the Environment was unable to give input. The primary reason I resigned from being the Brazilian environmental minister is due to this program. The way it is being promoted to the public is misleading as it can have detrimental impacts on their future. We need a more long-term plan, this will only advance Brazil in the short-term. Developing plans for sustainable development is critical. Measures have to be implemented before the environmental impact is irreversible. By then, if the government have not protected the Amazon region through sustainable development, not only Brazilians but the world will suffer. Highways, roads, logging projects, and colonization are the causes of deforestation. The completion of this development program, will upstart destructive trends. It will be a setback to the progress Brazil has made. Ultimately, the global community will suffer the devastating effects to the forest.

Cultural boundaries
One Hofstede cultural dimension relating to the ethics of deforestation is uncertainty avoidance. Brazil, as a society, does not tolerant uncertainty. The government must inform the public that there is no need to feel threatened by efforts to promote conservation planning in the Brazilian Amazon. If the mass is educated on the organization and structure of these policies, it will avoid their low tolerance for uncertainty. If Brazilians begin to understand there are no absolute truths and that their ways of thinking may have flaws that should be altered. This would advance progress of conserving the Amazon. In my opinion, the government should take small steps towards change. At first, it will be hard as Brazilians find it difficult to change their beliefs. However, it is important to take these steps in order to adjust the ethics of our society. Brazil is beginning to modernize and the high rate of change could have growing concern for the lack of a predictable rate of change. Although Brazilian moral principles may not be of Western standards, the Brazilian society need rules or controls to eventually adjust to morals different from their own. It is a tendency of a high uncertainty avoidance culture to have many rules to control behaviour. It is not usual to impose more laws or regulations to guide thinking.

The large power distance of the Brazilian society signifies that inequalities of power and wealth have been allowed to develop. This is due to the large population. The difficulty of achieving an equal standard of living is higher when there are more people. The poorer people of the North have had to compromise their morals to attain what they want through legitimate means. They would prefer to go to the Amazon to pursue a living and for land at the expense of harming the environment. In a culture with large power distance, the government has the power. Its decisions will be accepted. People will grow to adapt to what those in power believe. The public is less likely to challenge than accept what the government support because of the power it holds. Thus, government is able to dictate ethics rather than people deciding for themselves.

Who is involved?
The continuous harmful changes to the Amazon impact several stakeholders. The primary stakeholder affected is the Earth, our planet. Current and past misguiding government policies and development strategies that encourage further exploitation of the Amazon for commercial interests causes the most damage to the environment. Thus, it is important to implement new policies which will ensure the environment will be protected at a certain level. For the foreseeable future, the planet needs comprehensive agreements and law against climate change and for reducing carbon dioxide emission. The Brazilian Amazon is the largest rainforest in the world. How ever Brazil decides to act, the world will be affected. Looking to the future, the world needs a long-term solution. I believe the first step would be establishing comprehensive climate regulations and supplying carbon-free energy sources. Tomorrow's industrialists must realize that it is profitable to reduce emissions by funding conservation/sustainable development programs. While I am no longer Brazil’s environment minister, I will remain a vocal champion for the environment of my planet.

Alternative model for development
As for a model for Amazonian development, I would suggest creating measures, economic and non-economic, to reduce climate change. For measures limiting climate change, the key is preservation. Guyana's minister of foreign affairs voiced her agreement at the Copenhagen Conference by saying, "the fastest way of reducing carbon emissions is keeping the forest alive." She explained that, "all of the other measures we could take would take technology, time. But this we could immediately... We just [have to] stop cutting." Satellite imaging and carbon measurements are useful technologies to track the process. However, to conserve the forests, incentives [economic and non-economic] must outcompete alternative activities. Foreign companies must invest in sustainable forestry as it will encourage the Brazilian government to limit carbon emissions. Brazil must also build partnerships with wealthy developed countries. This can help establish a financial transfer mechanism and create a system which can measure, monitor, and report changes in forest cover. These are beneficial for Amazonian development while letting Brazil maintain control over its resources.

Multinationals, NGOs, Consumers
Multinational corporations can gain trust of consumers by promoting a cleaner environment. Under pressures to stop deforestation, they can decide which approach to take to Corporate Social Responsibility. As consumers can exercise their power through shopping ethically. Their opinions can influence decisions made by companies concerning the global environment. Consumers are vying to become aware of how products they purchase’s impact on the world. Their buying choices can encourage companies to clean up its act which would prevent themselves from feeling the effects of global warming and extreme climate changes. Civil society has publicly opposed deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon by supporting environmental organizations that are non-governmental like Greenpeace. Greenpeace is one of the environment groups which campaigned to stop various causes of deforestation. Greenpeace’s campaign against cattle ranching was the turning point from which companies took action. Brands like Nike, Adidas, and Clarks which were using Brazilian leather from cattle raised in the Amazon are now committed to "zero deforestation in their supply chains" along with Princes, the makers of beef products. They are the four biggest players in the global cattle sector, and all of them have chosen to take a proactive approach to Corporate Social Responsibility.

Ethical standards
These multinational corporations have taken initiatives against the values and practices of Brazil. They believe certain absolute truths apply everywhere and deforestation is wrong according to Western ethical standards. In this case, the MNC’s chose to lean towards ethical imperialism as the solution to this ethical issue. Other countries are pressuring Brazil to change its ways. "Morality is as genuine a human universal as is language. All cultures have moral systems." They believe the idea of separate but equal cultures no longer accurate in that cultures are not separate; they exist in the same space. One nation’s actions will affect other countries. However, as a Brazilian, my belief is that the private and social gains need to be balanced with the environmental losses from deforestation. We must consider the tradeoffs between economic activity and protection of the Amazonian forests. Brazil is enforcing Avanca Brasil which is working towards change, but also satisfying demands from other nations. These nations have been pressuring Brazil to conform to what they believe to be ethically right. Meanwhile, companies from the U.S. and China are following the practices of the local setting by expanding their pastures in the Amazon. That is detrimental to the environment. If the world expects Brazil to follow a development path that is different from its current one, then the costs will be substantial. Currently, a number of international initiatives are promoting conservation planning and sustainable development. The most significant one is the Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rainforest. G8 nations will channel USD $340 million into land-use planning, extractive reserves, and more. There also are bilateral programs between the Brazilian and other governments. Collectively, these programs involve hundreds of millions of dollars. The investment, in my opinion, would be worth it. The fate of the greatest tropical rainforest on Earth is at stake. Without it, we would lose the lung of the world.

Future
As a Brazilian, I hope that we can implement change for the future. We would not want to witness a near-complete destruction of the world's few remaining forests and the globalization of suicidal standards. Unless urgent action is taken, the Brazilian Amazon could lose an area the size of Denmark in the next 18 months.

Blood diamonds

Blood Diamond

Who finances civil wars, massacres, and slavery in South Africa? Everyone under the influence of De Beers. This dominating force in the diamond business has become an empire as it built a monopoly. Rarely are companies this successful through two centuries. But, De Beers has invested well and created perhaps the most successful campaign of all time - A Diamond is Forever. Nowadays, they have kept the value of diamonds higher than commodities made from gold, oil, and every other natural resource while they obtain the raw materials for very little. Production is overseen properly as well. Meanwhile, De Beers reserve inventory through the Central Selling Organization and control the diamond market. Worldwide, people are exploited by the marketing tactics of the cartel to the point where the company are capable of measuring our enjoyment.

Production and resources

Contrary to common opinion, the discovery of a valuable natural resource in an area where the central power is weak renders a negative economic repercussions rather than positive. Then, economic growth is stunted instead of growing. Civil unrest in many countries, including Sierra Leone, as shown in the film, began and was prolonged because of the struggle to obtain certain natural resources (Olsson, 2004). The diamond empire, De Beers, is the cartel owned by the Oppenheimer family. They are responsible for 90% of the world’s diamonds. Some of these diamonds are conflict or blood diamonds. Many of these originate from rebel groups’ illicit diamond trade in areas not controlled by De Beers. Brutal tactics employed has resulted in countless civilians’ deaths. Over the years, 3.7 million died in Africa’s civil wars (Africa Action, 2000). When a large percentage of the population die, the production possibilities frontier of that area decreases. Thus, the overall potential of the economy decreases in the long-term. Clearly, companies find it easier to acquire their resources from countries that has a weak institution because of their lack of power over preventing corruption within the government. It could be a result of the countries not being ready for such a resource. Because with no strong central institution, there is weak regulation. That is the reason why diamonds are being smuggled and why rebel groups like the RUF succeed in their movements. Over the past century, diamonds’ value as a natural or mineral resource has risen (Olssen, 2004). Thus, the crystals of carbon can be sold for incredibly high prices as seen in the movie, Vandy sold the pink diamond for around 2 million dollars (Olsson, 2004). Without these rough diamonds, commercial diamonds cannot be developed and made. Finished products require necessary resources or inputs. Rough diamonds were being sought for throughout the film (Zwick, 2006). Additionally, production of resources employs human resources or labour which is actually their greatest resource. People could be of market or technical expertise (Cuizon, 2009). The RUF raided villages to gather the natives for human labour. Another essential component of production is capital. The industrial factories where diamonds are modified - cut, shaped, and polished - make use of human-made goods to assist in production. Looking at the marketing role in production, entrepreneurship and technology are significant. De Beers is limiting production to decrease supply and increase the market price of diamond. Also, they fostered an inelastic demand which means they has full control over the price. The company is controlling the resources (diamonds) in the market (the world) to control production. Because rebel groups like RUF supply the De Beers with the factors of production they require, De Beers are the dominant force in South Africa. And that is a problem for the black natives. They, the labourers, are not receiving the income. With the diamond revenue, the RUF rebel groups had funding for their movement to capture civilians to obtain more resources (Olsson, 2004).

Scarcity, opportunity cost

De Beers manipulated the public to perceive the illusion that diamonds are scarce and valuable to increase demand. The public’s desire for diamonds only increased after false marketing using celebrity endorsement in Hollywood concerning the reality of diamonds’ availability and intrinsic value. But, diamonds are not rare. Diamonds are carbon and carbon is everywhere (MacFadyen, 1994). Meanwhile, when people are given the impression that a resource is rare and of value, a decision must be made to sacrifice one good for another. A business like De Beers, or Van De Kaap as known in the movie, used scarcity as an advantage. Through the Central Selling Organization, De Beers propelled people to sacrifice other opportunities for the diamond industry. The profit margin of diamonds became and still is extremely high. Thus, people are willing to overturn their farm land to search for diamonds which means that the overall economy in the area becomes troubled as everyone moved to work in the diamond industry. Other sectors like farming are abandoned. The land that could have been used for farming or schools were turned into diamond mines. Better education or alternatives to mining for a living were the opportunity cost. Not to mention, the country’s possible production frontier could have increased due to an increase in social well-being. However, most people used their efforts to enhance a industry where they have no control because only a select few have power (MacFadyen, 1994). Natives of South Africa like Danny Archer started to earn their living in the diamond trade because of the high stakes. Natives were willing to forfeit all other forms of earning money in harvesting diamonds. Ultimately, De Beers gains human labour, land, and natural resources. The sacrifice is many lives and eventually, civil wars. As seen in the movie, it is due to battle between the government and rebel groups whose aim was to become wealthy by enslaving natives to work in diamond mines (Zwick, 2006). Unfortunately, the government was overpowered by the RUF in Sierra Leone. But, the RUF did not want to rule the country, they only wanted the diamonds (Olsson, 2004).

Utility

One of the primary reasons diamond companies like Van De Kaap or De Beers feared the marketplace being saturated with diamonds and tried to restrict the amount sight holders had to sell is because of utility. As quantity of a good increases, satisfaction or utility experienced by consumer decreases. Rarity is key to diamonds’ value. De Beers will calculate the number of marriages worldwide and adjust the amount they will distribute to sight holders accordingly (MacFadyen, 1994). They aim to hit perfect peak to maximize utility. Reaching that peak increases their profits and growth in popularity. Even the high price of diamonds do not lower demands to indulge on them. The worth of diamonds symbolizes the value of the receiver to the giver. Thus, if many people are able to afford diamond jewelry for very little, then the symbolism of diamonds as wealth, prestige, love and devotion will become non-existent. Once diamonds are saturated into the market, the price will decrease (Emerling, 2000). Thereby, decreasing utility which has never happened to diamonds. The precious and eternal qualities of diamond relies on the Central Selling Organization to restrict the quantity available to the sellers and in turn, the buyers. In Blood Diamond, Archer claims that De Beers has control over mines in Sierra Leone to prevent an abundant supply of diamonds into the open market which can undermine control of the cartel. But, De Beers’ influence is much deeper. They indirectly created the environment in Sierra Leona. Due to diamonds’ high utility, Sierra Leone’s inhabitants gave up other sectors for the diamond industry. That created an imbalance and therefore, a decrease in PPF which contributes to their declining economy. Furthermore, the marketing campaign - A Diamond is Forever - would not have worked if utility was not maintained throughout the century by the CSO. In a short period of time, demand would have decreased. Diamonds would have lost their status symbol and all the sentimental reasons for which people purchase them (Emerling, 2000).

Whether the De Beers’ grip on the world will loosen is still unknown. Meanwhile, consumers can change their viewpoint on the importance of diamonds in our culture to reduce utility. All the while, the De Beers will be less likely to create artificial scarcity for the public who are not disillusioned anymore. Effects on the African economy will be seen immediately as production will decrease and those who left behind their families to pursue a life of wealth will return to where they belong. Soon enough, there will be workers in the fields and the natural resources sector will not be limited to diamonds. Although the diamond industry should continue, Africans must be depend solely on it alone. To prevent smuggling, De Beers should stop buying indirectly from countries like Liberia and set up offices where diamonds are mined. In places like Sierra Leone, theft and corruption would greatly decrease if De Beers bought diamonds of local origin. Hopefully, other sectors (i.e. farming) will become established to replace mining and build a more stable economy. The crucial factor is not in the economics, but in the politics. South Africa is in need of good governing and new reforms. Natural resource issues originated from the leaders who cared only for themselves, and neglected their fellow countrymen’s needs (MacFadyen, 1994). In Sierra Leone, the new president has to promote Sierra Leone’s institutional capacity for conflict prevention and be able to take charge of the country. First, any rebel movement must be stopped. With little control, the RUF did what they liked and caused many deaths and long-term decrease in resources. The country needs leadership and in particular, the desire for change and someone to bring about their hopes. Establishing the rule of law would enhance human security and bring the continent peace. The civil society require an able police force as well as a well-trained army. With that said, employment is the biggest problem South Africans face. Sustainable land reclamation projects could be started. Creating alternative livelihoods for the natives is also necessary to rebuilding South Africa and stopping diamond mining altogether (GPF, 2007). The natives have survived before the diamond trade, and must be dependent of it while continuing on living.

Works Cited

Africa Action (2000). Africa Policy. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from <http://www.africaaction.org/docs00/dia0007a.htm>

Blood Diamond. Dir. Edward Zwick. Perf. Leonardo DiCaprio, Djimon Hounsou, and Jennifer Connelly. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2006.

Cuizon, Gwendolyn (2009). What is Production. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from <http://product-quality-control.suite101.com/article.cfm/what_is_production>

The Diamond Empire: Oppenheimer family's cartel, Artificial scarcity. Dir. Gavin MacFadyen. With Edward Epstein, Thomas Helsby, and William Goldberg. WGBH Educational Foundation, 1994.

Olsson, Ola (2004). Conflict Diamonds. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from <http://www.ioes.hi.is/events/DEGIT_IX/Papers/Olsson.pdf>

Emerling, Susan (2000). Not Forever. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from < http://archive.salon.com/business/feature/2000/09/27/diamonds/print.html>

Global Policy Forum (2007). Peacebuilding Efforts in Sierra Leona Must Address Natural Resource Goverance. Retrieved 7, 2009, from <http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/sierra/2007/1010gwpbcs.pdf>

mask

Anita and Patti wearily shuffled down the stairs to the two waiting tour guides. Today was the end to a roller-coaster ride the girls have ridden for two weeks. A dark silence was complemented by hung heads and heavy steps as they embarked on a final trip to sightsee the wondrous city of Lima. Museo de Oro del Peru was the last stop.

Patti, in a quick walk-around around the museum, spotted Anita staring up to a glass screen shielding a treasured artifact.

Anita was observing how her reflection paled in comparison to the light catching the shine of the gold and silver. The polishing did, in fact, cause the surface of the mask to gleam. She knew if she peered inside it, its underside would resemble its outward appearance. The tour guides claimed that Peruvian art was made to be representative of status inside and out.

Slowly, Anita straightened her body. It had been hours since entering the museum.

Meanwhile, Patti came from behind to say, “So this type of masks is worn by the wealthy and the powerful because it symbolizes status?”

Anita looked back to say, “Yep. And for distinguishing lower classes from the powerful which then divided society.”

Patti added, “I’m glad that nowadays, people do not wear this form of jewellery because we emphasize equality.”

Then, they returned to viewing the overwhelming quantity of pre-Columbian gold pieces from the Incas and pre-Inca civilization. Anita, in particular, thought about the good shape these masks were in, with no sign of wear.

Anita sat there analyzing the mask until Patti tapped her hand to bring her attention to the tour guides. They revealed that the exquisite gold mask was most likely left undisturbed by Spanish conquistadors and grave robbers. Adding that, only a wealthy leader or royalty could have adorned this mask. Due to its elaborate design and intricate execution, this mask was reflective of Sutton Hoo burial masks. Both the Inca and Anglo-Saxon craftsmen skilfully carved clean lines and drawings which were the results of intricate tooling.

Suddenly, Patti saw Anita fumbling to find her iPhone. When she did, panic seemed to overcome her. Patti leaned over to see the time displayed on the screen. Was it really 7:30 p.m.? They had to return to BaseCamp. Anita needed to be there to wait for her ride to the airport.

When Patti and Anita finally reached BaseCamp, fifteen minutes later, a cab was waiting. Anita knew she had only minutes before the taxi driver would leave. Crying, the girls embraced one last time.

On a night like that, Anita realized why it meant so much to ancient Peruvians to be buried with art. Art serves as symbols, representations of ourselves, and we all want to be remembered. After all, we are born. We live for a little bit of time, and then we die. At least, these mummies were able to preserve their identity using symbols of status and wealth.

Interpretations of History

Interpretations of History

There are different ways of "seeing" history - or putting together the facts to create the story of what happened

The main interpretations that try to create one version of history:

1. The Great Man Theory
- history is the result of the actions of great men
- eg Nelson Mandela is responsible for the end of apartheid in South Africa

2. Marxist Theory
- history is the result of the struggle between the classes
- there is always a power struggle between the ruling and the working class
- eg the civil rights movement is the result of the oppressed lower classes rising up against the upper ruling class to change to status quo

3. Radical School of History
- history is written by the victors and for those in power
- history is biased by omitting the weakness of those in power and making those who lost seem evil
- eg WWII waas won because the Germans were evil and racist

4. Progressive Theory
- history is not a random series of actions but is constantly moving towards making society better
- goes hand to hand with the idea that all of history works in a cause and effect way
- eg the Reformation caused people to read the Bible for themselves which caused increased literacy which led to increased philosophy. People then questioned the system of government, democracy was started, and led to increased human rights, etc

The main interpretations that accept variations in history:

5. Post-modern Theory
- there cannot be one true story because there is no such thing as objectivity
- power is found in language and history is shaped by the language we use to tell it
- therefore, history is open to interpretation and changes according to who is telling it

6. Feminist Theory
- history has been written by men, leaving out women's place in the world
- because of this, history has focused on politics and economics, ignoring social history
- feminist historians often focus on the struggle between men and women to gain power and recognition

7. Post-colonial Theory
- history has been written by the West, leacing out the voices of the colonized
- post-colonial historians write about the experience of those in the margins, especially during the colonial period
- most post-colonial historians focus on how the colonized were oppressed, how their culture was changed, and the legacy of colonization on the world