The year is 2019. We are drowning in our own pollution; the ice sheets are melting at unexpectedly rapid rates and one of the world’s most important ecosystems is dangerously close to major damage. Despite our relatively short time on planet Earth, humans have significantly altered the natural world and the future of its existence. The tipping point of climate change that scientists thought was more than a century or two away, is happening before our eyes.
While the Earth marches towards oblivion, well intentioned liberal environmentalists have responded with great furor with ways in which we can save the planet. Some of the more popular suggestions are: cutting meat out of our diets, reducing/recycling waste and being more aware of our consumption habits. While these are all in fact some good individual practices to keep in mind, too much burden of responsibility is placed on changing the habits of the average everyday consumer, rather than the exploitative habits of multinational corporations and political policies that are responsible for worldwide environmental degradation.
As more and more countries battle with the climate crisis, they have been searching for ways in which to fight, or at least appear to simultaneously fight global environmental problems and vast inequalities. One way in which many developing economies have sought to do this is by taking up the pursuit of the elusive green economy, bolstered by a steady flow of international capital. Abiding by the adage that in order “To make live, one must make economic,” countries such as Guyana and Brazil have embraced the concept of a green state as a realistic approach to saving the planet. If it is one thing that we can learn from trying to protect our environment in the economic system under which we live, it is that commoditization is not always pragmatic.
Over the past few weeks, fires have been raging across the Amazon rainforest in vast parts of Brazil and Bolivia. Being home to most of the world’s species of plants and animals than any other terrestrial ecosystem, the burning of the Amazon will wreak disastrous consequences on the future of the world’s biodiversity. While the Amazon is no stranger to fires, there has been an 80% rise in the numbers of fires compared to the same period in 2018. Usually wet and humid, naturally occurring fires within most of the Amazon are rare. Current fires were deliberately set by rural farmers so that the land could be used for crop production and cattle grazing.
Aligning themselves with corporate one percenters and rural landowners, both Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro and Bolivia’s President Evo Morales, have set themselves on a path of encouraging and glibly standing by in the face of environmental genocide and exploitation. While Evo Morales had run and won on a platform of environmental democracy and progressive rebellion, he quickly did away with ideations of protected environments and democracies. Last month saw him declaring a new law that allows slashing-and-burning of the forest much akin to the “fire days” that occurred in Brazil following Bolsonaro’s opposition to protection of the environment in lieu of the capital benefits of protected land.
The international community, particularly European governments have of course come out in condemnation of the responses to the fires raging in the Amazon. With political heavyweight countries depending on our reliance on their narratives, we can often forget to unravel how foreign influences and demand can significantly impact lesser economies. For instance, while the West has come out in condemnation of Brazil’s leader, the fact is that western demands for produce such as Brazilian beef and palm oil are directly correlated to the rapid increase of deforestation. Two studies published by the Chalmers University of Technology found that consumers in Britain are responsible for a sixth of all global emissions and can be directly linked to deforestation in tropical forests such as Brazils’.
A component that has been missing within the conversations surrounding the burning of the Amazon is how this is also quite clearly the continuation of Indigenous genocide. Across the world, Indigenous persons, particularly those living in isolation, struggle to have their existence, cultural traditions and land rights respected. Often, governments act in direct contradiction to the laws and policies protecting Indigenous rights, especially where land is concerned. This practice has historically had and continues to have significant negative effects on them as their protection is placed against the backdrop of profits. A clear example of this is seen in the case of Bolsonaro who once said, “Where there is Indigenous land, there is wealth underneath it.” It is no coincidence that these fires are happening after political backsliding on environmental policies and Indigenous protections. This is just the latest result of the age-old battle between capitalist expansion and the environment’s Indigenous protectors.
With Guyana being a part of the Amazon rainforest and our own pursuit towards a green state, there is a lot that we can learn from the current state of affairs in Brazil and Bolivia in relation to their lapses in environmental and Indigenous protection. Guyana has its own torrid history with infringing on Indigenous territory in pursuit of economic gain through destructive extractive industries and stifling of rights. As we seek to expand our economy in the face of black gold, we need to be very cognizant of the compromises we are making and how it can impact the future of our environment and us. We’ve come a long way and there is still a long way to go. Let’s hope we reach it before the Earth makes its final rotation.
Akola Thompson is a writer and social activist. You can send comments to akolathompson@ gmail.com
