This comes under two main forms, one is to make room for soy crops, used mostly for cattle feed and not for direct human consumption, the other is for creating pasture land.
The west, as well as China, encourage the Amazon fires by favorable trade agreements with Brasil, which incentivize the deforestation.
The largest markets for Brazil beef are, in order, Hong Kong, China, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Chile, and Venezuela. I don't think this qualifies as "Western Countries". A very small amount, relative to those consumers, goes to the EU.
Close to none goes to the United States or Canada -- a minuscule novelty amount -- both of which are entirely self sufficient with beef, poultry, etc, and are net exporters.
There is a point where "blame the West" just isn't constructive as a go to.
I know that the US is self-sufficient in meat, both in terms of raising the cattle and the soy and corn crops that feed it.
Actually, a large portion of the US is dedicated to meat production, both in pasture land and feed crops - https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/
Which is insane if you ask me, a horrendous waste of resources.
And this is something hardly mentioned in the news at all, by whatever reason.
The trade wars with China have made things a bit worst recently, as there is more demand for brasilian soy.
The main responsibility for me lies with the consumers of the final product (meat), because they are driving the demand.
But OK it's not just the west after all, it's mostly the west and China, but really any nation that is importing cattle feed from Brasil is sponsoring the deforestation, it's a global thing.
The West likes beef. The West overwhelmingly makes and feeds internally, having nothing to do with the Amazon rainforests. Will you now argue that the West is to blame because it doesn't make enough for itself and China?
If you argued that palm oil production was a factor you'd have some basis, but you are entirely and completely off base with these claims about beef.
Do you have any doubt that a lot of the products produced directly or indirectly as a result of the deforestation are being sold mostly to the richest countries in the world that can afford it?
Not every problem needs to be exclusively the fault of the west - it's okay for other people to do things wrong as well.
0: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-exports/u... 1: https://gro-intelligence.com/insights/articles/in-race-for-c...
Again, not the West. What's next? Adam Smith and the creation of capitalism?
A lot of the soy is exported all over the world, to china due to the trade wars with the US, to western countries which need cattle feed but don't have the land to produce those crops.
Developing nations have limited meat consumption still, the biggest consumers of meat is the west in general. The cattle feed needs to come from somewhere, a lot of it comes from the Amazon.
The biggest consumers are the West and China, so following the money I think those are the main responsible because it's their demand for the final product that is ultimately the economic reason behind the deforestation.
So indeed I underestimated the role of China in this process, has I thought historically the biggest consumers of meat have been the west.
The trade wars with China have recently increased the demand for brasilian soy, adding fuel to the fire so to speak.
>The top exporters of Soybeans are Brazil ($25.9B), the United States ($22B), Argentina ($2.82B), Paraguay ($2.19B) and Canada ($1.91B). The top importers are China ($36.6B), Mexico ($1.72B), the Netherlands ($1.6B), Japan ($1.41B) and Spain ($1.31B).
It would appear China is the one with the insatiable appetite for soy, not the US and Canada.
The problem is the entire system.
Of course there is demand, but there is also supply.
Each side must maintain standards, rather than just choosing the cheapest options.
And both sides must hold each other accountable. Consumers must verify that production is sustainable, etc, and suppliers must insist on prices that support that, and reject quick-money offers/undercutting-schemes that undermine standards.
In this particulr instance, I think there is a case (even an imperative) for "the west" to try to impose eco-tarrifs or eco-certifications etc on Brazilian beef, in order to pressure for more sustainable production practices.
People don't have infinite money. In fact 4.5 billion people don't make enough money not to be in qualitative extreme poverty[1] let alone enough money to be able to freely choose options that are not cheapest. Extremely small portion of total people have any actual freedom to choose options other than cheapest.
> Consumers must verify that production is sustainable
Such verification is impossible as it requires infinite time and perfect information. It is always cheaper and more profitable to lie about sustainability than to actually be sustainable. When one hole is fixed 10 more holes appear.
1. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/07/5-myths-about-global-...
Perhaps in the same way as CITES for banning trading in endangered species, or the various timber certifications, which are certainly imperfect and "full of holes" but at least a start. I think tech could vastly improve systems of provenance.
As I said, the system itself is at fault (as per your excellent link - thanks) - there will always be consumers wanting the cheapest price regardless, and suppliers willing to offer it, or even encouraging it (and certainly trying to hide the 'regardless' part of the equation).
They must be stopped.