I guess the two real questions are...
Where is the line between ecocide and legitimate consumption of resources?
Do other human rights or ecocide take precedent when they conflict?
Where is the line between ecocide and legitimate consumption of resources?
Do other human rights or ecocide take precedent when they conflict?
"Ecocide is the extensive damage to, destruction of or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished” [1]
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257552825_Protectin...
The definition is still very vague and subjective. The people running the court in Europe might see deforestation in Brazil as severely diminishing peaceful enjoyment. I would say the farmers clearing that land for agricultural use would argue that they are peacefully enjoying the land now that they modified the ecosystem to be more hospitable to their way of life, crops, and animals. We could even go as far as to say that every city meets this definition as nature has been replaced with buildings and many of the animals have been greatly reduced or eliminated.
Likewise, the Amazon can be reforested. Maybe not at the rate were cutting it down, but it's not as though trees will never be able to grow there again.
There needs to be a more nuanced decision around these. I'm with you, those things are bad and they should stop, but I would prefer to have a coherent framework we decide based on. I don't want to arbitrarily decide based on who can sway public opinion.