Should the Brazilian government and people have the right to exploit the rainforest as a resource?

Conservationists and economists lock horns over the right and to what extent natural resources can be exploited constantly. Whilst conservationists recognise that LEDCs urgently need economic development to improve the quality of life, they regard total exploitation as threatening, both to the environment and to the country involved. Similarly, economists are aware that total exploitation of natural resources will not be beneficial in the long-term, but believe that LEDCs require immediate, short-term action to bring about economic progress. Neither group is wrong; conservationists are right to point out that forests are under threat, whilst economists are correct in pointing out the urgency in bringing in revenue to benefit countries.
One area where this debate is in full swing is Brazil, where the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest is continuing at an alarming rate. In a total area of 4,100,000 sq km of rainforest, 699,000 sq km have been removed for lumber or grazing land for cattle. The percentage of rainforest cover stands at 82%, down from 95% in 1970. The main reason for felling the forest is to convert the land into agricultural land. 90% of the felling occurs for farming reasons; 60% for cattle ranches and 30% for small-scale agricultural production. Demand for beef in Europe and North America is insatiable and, in large numbers, can fetch large profits. Smaller farmers are also likely to earn marginally more in subsistence farming than in informal factory work in Sao Paulo or Rio de Janierio.
Contrary to popular belief, only 1% of the rainforest is felled for timber. However, the timber that is felled is of extraordinary value on the world commodities market - woods such as mahogany and ebony are very expensive in the western world. Timber is also increasing in value year by year, with the recent boom in house building in Asia and America fuelling high demand for lumber. Consequently, there is a huge economic incentive, particularly in the short-term to preserve the rainforest, both for large investors and small farmers.
Many people are also anxious to ensure that views of the rainforest are not skewed by untrue facts. Brazilian logging companies have their own statistics which appear to suggest that deforestation is not as severe a problem as perceived. They claim that only 2% of the rainforest has been felled since the 70's, and those areas are on the periphery of the forests where there is already human influence and the forests cannot be regarded as pristine and undisturbed. However, these facts are difficult to reconcile with NASA photographs of the rainforest which show huge swaths of felled forest, certainly more than 2%. However, environmetalist groups also are selective in the information they present, and regularly fail to point out the work logging companies do towards replanting and ensuring that forestry is carefully managed.
Nevertheless, the rate of deforestation is undoubtedly high. This destruction of the rainforest has a profound impact upon a variety of interest groups. One of the major benefactors from a healthy and diverse rainforest is the atmosphere, which indirectly has a bearing upon everyone in the world. The Amazon Rainforest is known as the 'lungs of the world' and are estimated to store over 10% of the world's stored CO2 and thus accounts for 10% of the world's net primary productivity. Many scientists believe that losing the Amazonian rainforest would have severe implications upon CO2 levels and global temperatures.
Furthermore, the Amazon rainforest is still largely unexplored, and certainly most of the plant and animal life has never been categorised or examined. This suggests that, with most medicines and ingredients stemming from rainforests, losing this diversity would also mean a loss of potentially crucial medicines. This would not only be a tragic loss for medical researchers, but also for countries with rainforests, as there would be a massive loss in potential revenues and export power. In a country where 31% of the population lives below the poverty line, and GDP stands at $8,800, losing such a valuable and potentially profitable resource would be tragic. Preserving the rainforest would also be potentially profitable in terms of managed mining and forestry. Whilst not providing immediate revenue, managed forestry would be a long-term and effective method of providing a sustainable and steady income. Tourism would also be a sustainable income earner, provided that the rainforest is preserved.
However, a significant body of opinion within Brazil, represented mainly by the industrial and land owners want to see short-term economic progress within Brazil. Whilst all the main political parties are leftist or even Marxist, these groups hold significant power within Brazil, especially when government needs financial backing for projects. Consequently, there has been a growth in the amount of deforestation and mining projects going ahead within the Amazon basin. There are also many poorer citizens who not only wish, but need, to see an opening up rainforests to allow farmland to be created. Significant numbers of city dwellers are leaving major urban areas for the interior in order to seek a better standard of living. Their livelihoods are closely tied in with an expansion in the amount of land available for farming. These people do recognise that preservation is important for Brazil's rainforests, but when hungry stomachs need filling, this argument holds little sway.
In the Western world it is often difficult to comprehend the extraordinary difficulties LEDC governments face in making decisions regarding sensitive eco-systems that can be vastly profitable. In a society dominated by the service an manufacturing sector, and where we can afford to protect ecologically important areas of nature, it can often seem short-sighted of other nations to exploit their natural resources. Yet, when countries as poor as Brazil have such vastly lucrative resources such as the Amazon rainforest, it is easy to understand why they are so keen to make the most of those potential income earners.
There are many sceptics of the significance of the rainforests, particularly with regard to their importance to climate regulation. Phillip Stott, an eminent geographer considers the 'lungs of the earth' theory the "daftest of all theories". His views are largely based upon the notion that in the history of the earth, rainforests have not been a significant eco-system affecting the formation of the climate. However, he does not disagree that the rainforests should be, partially at least, persevered for the benefit of the plant and animal life that exists within them, and the potential long-term benefits of tourism and sustainable forestry. Perhaps further evidence is needed before this debate can be solved. Unfortunately this evidence is difficult to collate, particularly when climate, an unpredictable and whimsical force, is concerned. Stott and other argue that, whilst trends may suggest changes in climate, there is scant evidence to support this. And, indeed, they have a valid point. However, it may not be raining but if there are dark clouds on the horizon you get the washing in!
Personally, I think that the preservation of the rainforests is crucial, not just in terms of preserving the current climate on the earth, and because it will be more economically sustainable, but because of the ethical issues involved. I do not believe we hold the right to destroy or pollute the very earth on which our own survival depends. Creationists through to evolutionary scientists cannot deny that the world is a beautiful and awe-inspiring place; something beyond the bounds of human abilities to create. What right or reason would we have to damage such a precious environment?

National Prejudices

Whilst we may feel that we live in an age where prejudice against one another simply because of inherent causes has been eradicated, it is untrue to say that our attitudes are unbiased or unprejudiced. After the Second World War nationalism appeared to be fading in its influence over hearts and minds, and many European countries were ready to sign up to the EEC/EU proposals of pan-Eurpoean free markets and open borders. Yet there has been an increasing movement towards patriotism and sharing a national identity. Whilst these are good things in themeselves, as they promote goodwill and co-operation , they can easily lead to nationalism and xenophobia if taken to the extreme.
Furthermore, there appears to be great resentment towards many industrialising nations that threaten the commerical and military migt of Western powers. Should the West fear the rise of China as an economic and military superpower, or view this as an opportunity to build economic and global security ties? I can speak with no authority here, as I have no detailed knowledge that politicians and diplomats will have, but there is certainly a current of opinion within ordinary society that China represents a threat to the West.
Many people shudder with horror at the thought of buying a product manufactured in China, although they secretly rejoice at making huge savings by buying cheaper products. People prefer to buy products made in their own country, out of a spirit of patriotism certainly. However, it seems that people in the UK are much more willing to buy an American product than one made in the Far East. Again, this could be a spirit of race, rather than national, patriotism, out of a determination to aid one's bretheren, but this does seem perverse in an age when we are attempting to promote the message of equality and trying to destroy national barriers. After all, why should China, Taiwan etc. be denied the same privilidges that come through a domination over trade and global affairs that Europe and North American have enjoyed for decades.
Yet we still continue to improve our own economies in an attempt to compete with China and India, instead of focussing on diversifying and improving efficiency to tackle wastage, climate change and social issues such as unemployment and income disparity. Unfortunately we appear to value national standing and prestige above fairness and preservation of the planet.
Another example is the prevailing attitude towards migration into this country. The perennial notion that is circulating is that immigrant families come to Britain cheifly to live off the state and enjoy privilidges that they cannot afford in their country of origin. Despite this view, there is very little evidence that immigrants work any less than hard than UK nationals. In fact, many Polish and Eastern european workers, the ones that are most often bearted for their idleness and letahrgy, are the ones that work the hardest doing jobs that any ordinary Briton would refuse to do for a wage that no-one else would accept.
In addition, migrant workers are often able to under-cut British workers on price, as they are prepared to put up with lower wages. Whilst many British labourers have every right to complain about losing their jobs to migrant workers, this still shows a failure to grasp a basic economic principle; that price dictates any choice the consumer makes. If British workers wish to retain their jobs, they must strive to improve effieciency or quality.
One would assume, of course, that this opinion would only be shared by those who are directly impacted by migrant labourers, such as builders, plumbers etc. However, the attitude of, if not hostility, then unease regarding migtration, especially from nations we would regard as under-developed, appears to be endemic rather than a representation of a minority opinion. Many politicians are regarding migration, and the reduction of immigrants, as a central issue that will win them votes if they are able to cut the numbers. Whilst this may be a popular policy, surely one could not regard blatant discrimination as an ethical or tenable policy. After all, if the immigration was a brain-drain from the US to the UK, how many people would be complaining?
Overall, therefore, there anumber of ways in which we can see there is much work to be done in tackling prejudice and self-interest, despite the many advances we have made in recent years. Migration is likely to become and even hotter political hot-potato in recent years. Lets hope we can eventually see some sense and focus on our own failings rather than picking out those in others.

Parliament Press Gallery Piece

‘Write a balanced discussion paper assessing how, or whether, Britain’s aid policy objectives – universal free education, universal access to drugs to tackle malaria and HIV – can be achieved. Set out how these objectives have been affected by the UK’s wider foreign policy and military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.’

To be sure, the introduction of a universal policy with the objective of providing free, comprehensive care or education globally would require vast mobilisation of resources and expertise. Gordon Brown wrote in the Times (April, 2007) that educating the 80 million children who do not currently go to school would cost $10 billion per year. A significant sum this may be, but not an impossible target to meet.
Even the UK could fund a universal education programme with minimal damage to public services. Furthermore, we have the expertise in this country, as a leading nation in providing quality university courses and teaching, to train educators, doctors, nurses and carers with the necessary skills to implement such a broad policy.
Again, funding is a significant issue that will need detailed scrutiny in order to find the necessary finances, but not an impossible aim. Assuming half of the world’s richest economies take part in funding the universal education/healthcare programme, the UK’s share of the cost would clock in at around £28,000,000 per year. This figure pales into insignificance when compared with the amount that is proposed to be saved under the Conservative policy of scrapping the existing inheritance tax system. George Osborne, whether correctly or not, certainly believes it credible that he can save £1 billion in taxes. If, rather than not collect this money and benefit the tax-payer, they were to spend it upon implementing a world policy of free education, which would benefit far more people, the UK could soar past the target figure needed.
Of course, however, it would be political disaster for the Conservatives, or any political party to even conceive the notion that taxes should be spent on something other than UK public services. And this is the most important attitude that must change in the UK. We have the expertise and the finances to implement such a policy, but we lack the collective self-sacrificing and charitable nature needed. As a country we are quite happy to put our 2 penny pieces into the Breast Cancer Awareness box at the corner shop counter, but giving away millions of pounds of tax-payers money appear quite a different matter.
Of course, we have a point. Why should OUR taxes should be spent on anything but OUR services? Look after Number 1 is the perennial dictum of any capitalist society, right? Yet this selfish attitude towards money is hindering the progress of many schemes such as these, providing universal access to drugs and education. If only we as nations in the West could view our ‘global responsibility’ and recognise the need to be more generous and self-sacrificing with regards to our giving, much more could be achieved.
Furthermore, withholding on issues such as these further perpetuates the stereotype of the Westerner as an arrogant money-maker, rather than as an altruistic humanist. We are acutely aware of the need to break down stereotypes in the UK, but fail to identify where we are merely disseminating the typecast we strive to avoid. In addition, we can hardly preach to the world about the need to reduce carbon emissions, reduce wastage of resources and cut population growth, whilst we consistently foster growth in our own economies without assisting those that have hardly begun to develop.
Moreover, investment in education and healthcare will not cost the western world in the long-run, despite the commitment required right now (although it appear that the obligation may be less onerous than first appears) in order to provide in such a way. Investment in education will mean more and better minds focusing on the needs of the world, such as tackling climate change, resource depletion etc. and health care provision will benefit everyone by eradicating dangerous diseases that spread quickly and threaten life. Eliminating these disease will also lead to healthier populations, putting less pressure on resources in the future, such as preventative medicine and the provision of constant health care.
Consequently, it appears that, if the UK and the Western world were to shake themselves out of their shells of complacency, and in the worst cases arrogance, the implementation of universal education and universal provision of drugs to combat HIV and malaria could easily be met. As we have seen, the cost to the UK would not be great when compared with the amount we spend on ourselves, and the expertise could easily be sourced using the educational institutions already established in Europe and North America. All that is required is a collective sense of altruism and unselfishness that could easily be raised if only we had a broader view of the world than the insular, sheltered stance we currently have.

Why History?

We seem to have an extraordinary obsession with history in the UK. We as a nation have an insatiable penchant for historical pulp fiction novels and costume-dramas on TV. Companies such as the National Trust and English Heritage turn over hundreds of millions of pounds each year and own large tracts of land all over the country. Whether or not this phenomenon is apparent in Europe or elsewhere abroad I am not sure, but certainly the British seem to enjoy examining the past.
Some historians are critical of this amateur love for history, and are aggrieved at the way in which the ‘dumbing down’ of history depreciates its true value. This is undoubtedly true for those who see history as a purely academic subject or who wish to keep history locked away in dusty libraries and archive rooms in museums. And, indeed, this method of studying history in an academic and ‘true’ way, following outlined precepts and principles should not be derided. Exclusive and inflexible it may be, but it nevertheless produces the main of our academic history, which is the base of all historical knowledge.
However, history is not an exclusive and academic subject, for which one must go to university in order to study it simply because it is not important that students of the discipline follow rigid guidelines of learning, unlike students of mathematics or psychology. Whilst basic skills must be understood to comprehend history, such as chronology and basing assertions of fact rather than fancy, much of the learning comes from experiencing rather than reading or being taught history. Thankfully educational institutions were the first to recognise this, although not without facing much hostility, and many history courses are becoming more and more interactive and personalised, with emphasis placed upon individual learning rather than theory teaching.
As well as a change in attitude towards conventional historical study i.e. degrees and PhDs there has been a there has been a massive rise in the number of genealogy and ancestry courses and literature available either on-line or as local groups. Many newsagents stock up to as many as 10 different history or genealogy related magazines (although this figure is put to shame by the number of magazines available featuring cars or even angling!).
The reasons for this national obsession are manifold. Firstly, as a European nation we have a lot of historical evidence to examine and study. Unlike American and African nations, what Europeans left behind has lasted and is well documented. Only Asian civilisations have achieved the same or even better levels of historical remains. Buildings, cities and writings that survive are of immense value to historians, and make the job or writing or studying history so much easier. The fact that African and North American nations tended to be migratory, and also that many African and American civilisations were simply wiped out or made subservient to white Imperialists in the 17^th, 18^th and 19^th centuries has meant that little documented evidence of their cultures and customs remains.
Secondly, British history is a fascinating and, for the most part, glorious tale of a nation that has many clearly visible ways of how the past has shaped its present and future. Henry VIII’s break with Rome, Charles I’s execution, William of Orange’s ‘Glorious Revolution’, the Act o0f the Union between England and Scotland and Cook’s claiming of Australia for Britain are all examples of how British history has direct implications upon British nationhood today, and how our future as a country will pan out. Very few countries have the ability to look at the past with such clarity and assess each piece of history with such accuracy.
Finally, British history is interesting. Undoubtedly the French have a fascinating historical story to tell, but the variety and vibrancy of British history must surely steal the show. Events such as 1066 and William the Conqueror, the Wars of the Roses, the Civil War and the British Empire have such a multiplicity of stories and characters that make the events seem so much more worthwhile to study. This may appear to be a narrow-minded viewpoint, and there will be many who disagree. Indeed, studying history would be worthless without an examination of the American War of Independence, the French Revolution, Communist Russia and Nazi Germany, as these are undeniably key points on which much of the world’s history hinges. Nevertheless, I still maintain that Britain is fortunate to have such a wide ranging and varied history as make any study of it seem so much more worthwhile, and this is surely why so many people seem to have an affinity and fascination with our history.

This essay is designed to show how De Bernieres masterfully creates the setting of the island of Cephallonia in the book Captain Corelli’s Mandolin. The Greek islands have never been better described by an outsider, in my opinion, than by De Bernieres. He encapsulates island life brilliantly, with all its quirks and peculiarities.
The first impression De Bernieres gives of Cephallonia is mixed, although the majority of the reader’s feelings for the island are swayed largely towards the positive. De Bernieres does this by not describing the island, rather the inhabitants of the island.
Our first encounter with Dr Iannis and the description of his daily work suggests that at the present time all is well with the island, and that it is a peaceful idyll where little of significance occurs and the island and villages have become timeless. We are given this impression mostly through the description of the doctor’s rounds, which include a ‘relatively easy calving, lanced one abscess…’. Even the dosing of ‘one lady of easy virtue with Slavarsan’ suggests that although the inhabitants have their illicit practices, this does not rise beyond a certain rustic sense of immorality, rather than a mass indulgence.
The timelessness comes from the sense that the villagers are seemingly unaware of the world beyond their own lives, and only the doctor appears to have received any proper education or knowledge. Nevertheless, these people are not portrayed as ignorant, rather they are simply unconcerned with the outside world and choose to devote their energies to what matters most to them and their lives.
This image of sleepiness and agelessness is further compounded by the doctor’s histories. Although they are describing the history of the island and how it has been ravaged by one administration and ruler to the next, the whimsical nature of religion etc., there is still a sense that the island has not been affected by this mistreatment or randomness, in that life still continues to sustain itself. This image is further expanded through the doctor’s capricious and sweeping way of detailing events, suggesting that although historically significant, they have little import upon the lives of the Cephallonians.
Finally, we arrive at a sense of agelessness and sleepiness through the way in which the De Bernieres switches from the magnificent to the mundane in a matter of sentences, choosing to mesh the two together rather than treat them separately.
For example, we are given the history of Cephallonia through the eyes and words of the doctor, and De Bernieres uses excessive and complex language and themes, such as ‘It is completely virgin. It produces overwhelming clarity of focus, it has heroic strength and brilliance.’ in order to describe the light of Cephallonia. The following paragraph contains a description of the doctor urinating on the plants and the goat eating the doctor’s work.
This intermeshing suggests that, whilst Cephallonia has its place and importance in history, and contains many brilliant and amazing qualities, it is, nevertheless, a place where ordinary people go about their live and urinate on the plants.

Attitudes to Climate Change - A Drip-Feed Approach?

The question posed by many environmentalists today is what it will take for us, as a human race, to be jolted out of our complacency towards the environment and what will be required before we are prepared to make sacrifices for the planet. There is certainly a large enough scientific consensus that climate change is not only occurring, but is a problem, if not a threat. Yet, we now seem to be stuck in a rut as to what the best policy is towards reducing carbon-emissions. In fact, some even argue that we need not reduce our emissions provided we can offset that pollution by planting trees to absorb carbon etc. although the people who hold this opinion tend to be in the minority.
Campaigners such as Al Gore, with his documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth' and others are certainly contributing to a changing of attitudes towards climate change. Unfortunately these documentaries and campaigns, however effective or informative they are, are still failing to provide the dramatic changes to spending and consumption patterns that are needed to tackle this problem. Raising awareness is obviously a key to this issue, but as of yet it seems to be doing precious little to alter our lifestyles.
So what do we need to do? What needs to happen in order to produce the dramatic turnaround that we are told so often that we need. One obvious of guaranteeing success would be a policy of tax-rises for CO2 emitting products, with tax-breaks for low-emissions or carbon-neutral products such as cars or generating power. The biggest factor in any individuals calculations is the relative costs involved, and price is a massive factor in any transaction. Look at the lengths many superstores go to to ensure that their products are cheaper than others, and the success of value-stores over those that cannot offer either quality or price. As Henry Ford said in his famous maxim:
'There is one rule for the industrialist; make the best quality of goods possible, at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.'
In fact, cost seems to be the most highly regarded of these three principles; the others being largely disregarded by some firms.
If so much emphasis is put upon costs, therefore, it would seem obvious that one way to tackle CO2 emissions would be to implement policies of charging the polluters for the damage they cause, and rewarding those who lower or annul their emissions. Nevertheless, this policy seems to be a political hot-potato, particularly in the UK. Politicians are extremely reluctant to promote any policies that present any tax-rises, regardless of the benefits that this would accrue to the global community, presumably because of the considerable risk of alienating a substantial portion of the electorate. Furthermore, any minute legislation or guidelines that would begin to change habits towards consumption in this country, such as proposals for large reductions in the numbers of cars on the roads in 2030, for example, would also be avoided like the plague, presumably for the same reasons.
Therefore, politicians must gain the political will to step in, or the public must gain the motivation to act of their own accord. Given the present ease of buying cars, appliances, personal computers and the ability to travel relatively cheaply, it seems unlikely that the majority are prepared to give up these practices. The luxury of being able to spend in such an extravagant way has become so ingrained in our culture that not only do we enjoy living such lifestyles, we get withdrawal symptoms every time these privileges are denied to us. Think of the pandemonium that would occur if we found suddenly that only one car was allowed per household.
Consequently, because we have little political or personal will to act on such matters, it does seem to be the case that a gradual acceptance of the damage we are doing to our planet, and a drip-feed of documentaries, books and reports is perhaps the most effective way of communicating to the majority the best ways that we can tackle the problems that threaten our planet, rather than attempting to convince the world into committing themselves to decisive action, despite the fact that that could be what is most needed in order to save our world.

James Baldwin the essayist and social commentator wrote that: 'People are trapped in history,
and history is trapped in them.'
This statement is undoubtedly true, as any perusal of the plethora of historical books or
films will show. I am inspired to study history to understand why history is 'trapped inside
us' and to know why we need history, at least on an amateur level. Furthermore, history is
enormously relevant for analysing the present and projecting the future, and is also the
subject most likely to raise debate or controversy. I also want to broaden my knowledge of the
past, particularly political history, in order to understand why and how things are the way
they are, and how we can hope to understand the future in that historical context.
Consequently, I would very much like to study HistoryPolitics at University
Aside from doing an A-Level in History, I am also entering the AEA for History, for which I am
required to do a significant amount of reading, particularly regarding historiography and the
interpretation of history. This additional reading has enabled me to broaden my understanding
of historical events and the study of history as an academic subject.
This autumn I shall be entering the Great Debate, a competition organised by the Historical
Association. The subject this year is the most important scientific achievement since 1906,
for which I have chosen to argue for Rutherford's splitting of the atom in 1907. This event
will enable me to deploy my historical knowledge in a new of method, using appropriate
presentational techniques.
I am a subscriber to the History Today magazine, which I find very useful in providing
academic articles on a variety of historical topics that I would not otherwise read. I also
read the BBC History, which is less scholarly, but presented in a much more accessible and
interactive fashion. I also take an active interest in local history, assisting at the local
museum in a number of capacities, such as cataloguing old photographs, creating displays etc.
In addition I am interested in current affairs and read Prospect magazine, which styles itself
the magazine of 'Politics, Essays and Argument'. This magazine is fascinating and provides an
unusual mix of current affairs and debate about a wide range of topics. This magazine provides
a much more detailed picture of debates, with many different and conflicting points of view
considered, which serves to broaden my understanding on these topics
I am also a keen reader of fiction, although my favourite fictional authors tend to be
historical novelists! Thomas Hardy and Charles Dickens are my favourite authors, not least
because they are outstanding storytellers, but also because of their trenchant and insightful
assessment of the ongoing social upheaval. A more contemporary author I enjoy is Sebastian
Faulks, who has an excellent talent for telling history through the eyes of ordinary people.
My extra curricular activities involve completing my Gold Duke of Edinburgh and taking part in
practice walks. Fortunately I have always been a good hiker. During the summer of 2006 myself
and my family completed the Tour de Mont Blanc, a 120-mile round hike in the Alps over 7 days.
I also do a lot of walking on nearby Dartmoor. I also keep fit by rowing in the local gig club
every week and take part in the fitness training sessions.
A significant amount of my time is spent on a project established by the Kenyan Government
called Digital Village, which aims to set up computer schools and Internet access to all
villages in Kenya. As part of this project myself and a team of people are travelling to Kenya
in October and working in a handful of villages setting up computers and providing basic ICT
lessons. Hopefully we will be able to expand this project in the future. At the moment I am
raising awareness and funds for this project and am keen to maintain my involvement with this
project.