I chose to examine a case study that looked at deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.  This case comes from Colby College http://personal.colby.edu/personal/t/thtieten/defor-brazil.html.  The focus of the case is about how the Brazilian government’s decisions impact local farmers and in-turn impact the amazon.  The government’s tax policies benefit major producers by excluding up to 90% of income from taxation.  This drives up the price of land beyond the reach of small producers who are then driven to find cheaper land in the Amazon.  The government also recognizes squatter rights and this further incentivizes local farmers to clear-cut and farm the Amazonian forest. Brazil has a large agriculture sector and this tax structure is in place to grow the industry.  The goal of the policy is economic development and an increase in the per capita GDP of Brazil.  As we learned in lecture, development is an ethical question and not all development is positive.  In this case we can see the positives because it increases GDP and provides jobs, but at the same time it decimates forests.

The second case I chose focuses on deforestation in Indonesia and comes from the Indonesian Working Group on Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation http://wrm.org.uy/oldsite/deforestation/Asia/Indonesia.html.  Indonesia’s rate of deforestation dramatically increased in 1966 after all forests were declared state property.  This simplified ownership and made it easier for international corporations to operate in logging and agriculture.  During the 1990’s the government had a stated goal to become the world’s largest producer of wood pulp and palm oil.  The International Monetary Fund further worsened the situation when they stipulated that Indonesia should remove all barriers to palm oil investment.  This case is similar to the Brazilian deforestation problem, but they differ on scale.  The deforestation in Indonesia is at the nationwide scale, while Brazil’s occurs at the local level.  This development is also focused on increasing GPD to improve the lives of Indonesians.  Once again, this development has positive and negative effects. The ethical question posed is, what is more important, the lives of Indonesians or preserving the natural habitat?

I lived my entire life in a populated suburb about twenty minutes outside of Pittsburgh.  The lecture showed that GDP is a strong indicator of development, despite its limitations.  Both Indonesia and Brazil are less developed when looking at per capita GDP as an indicator.  My town does not rely on the environment for our income, unlike the people of Brazil and Indonesia.  We can apply the concept of environmental determinism to understand the policies of the governments and the actions of the people.  Both Indonesia and Brazil have warm climates and plenty of arable land on which to farm.  In Pennsylvania half of the year is too cold to grow anything and most of the land is already occupied.  The Indonesian and Brazilian people have a strong incentive to farm, which leads to deforestation.  I had other avenues to pursue in order to make a living.  I think it’s important to conserve, but I can’t blame the people or the government for trying to improve their lives.