Brazil and The United States

Brazil occupies almost half of South America and is roughly the size of the USA excluding Alaska.  Much of Brazil remains covered by the Amazon, a vast wilderness of which legends are still made.  The Amazon remains partially unexplored, and with the estimated 15,000 species there, it is no surprise that many go unidentified.  Brazilian culture is a mix of influences shaped by the original inhabitants, the Portuguese, the Africans, and the settlers from Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.  In music, food, dance, art, and religion, Brazil embraces the various traditions that have fed its history and affected its development.

Brazil and The United States.  With regards to measurements of economic freedom and real gross domestic product per capita, the U.S. ranks third in the highest rated countries according to Gwartney et al. (2005: pp 73-74) and Brazil ranks eighth from the bottom.  Environmentally, the U.S. has some of the highest rates of per capita consumption in the world with an ecological footprint – a measure of use of biologically productive land and water – of 9.5 hectares per person, tied for 2nd highest with Kuwait.  Brazil, on the other hand, has more modest rates of per capita consumption (like most developing economies), and its per capita ecological footprint is tied for 36th place at 2.2 hectares per person.  Until 2006, the U.S. was the largest global emitter of greenhouse gases and had among the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions ranking 7th highest at 24.9 tons of CO2 equivalent per year in 2000.  Yet, the U.S. has some of the strictest environmental laws and generally has a fairly good record of enforcing these laws.  Brazil also has lower per capita greenhouse gas emissions, ranking 87th in 2000 at 4.9 tons of CO2 equivalent per year according to the World Resources Institute.  However, when clearing of forest cover and burning of vegetation is factored in, Brazil’s overall impact is much higher, and was ranked 38th in 2000 and in the top ten nations in 2003.  Also, Brazil has one of the most significant income inequalities in the world as listed by the World Bank and several other sources. 

Environmental Challenges.  Given the size of Brazil (approximately 190 million people as of mid-2006), dramatic increases in per capita consumption and greenhouse gas emission pose severe challenges for local and global ecosystems.  This is particularly so given the global ecological importance of the Amazonian rain forest.  Often referred to as “the lungs of the planet,” the Amazon basin (60% of which is in Brazil), is the most biodiverse terrestrial ecosystem on earth, containing an estimated 60,000 species of plants, 1,000 species of birds, and 300 species of mammals as well as thousands of species of insects – only 40% of which are estimated to have been identified.  While the Amazon has been reduced by over 15% by logging and farming activities, it is still estimated to contain roughly 1/3 of the remaining forestland on earth.  Despite its ecological importance, the Amazonian forest is being reduced by millions of acres each year due to logging (both legal and illegal) and clearing of land for both subsistence and commercial farming and ranching.  Enforcement of environmental laws in Brazil is far less consistent than in the U.S.  The Amazon is seen as representing both a source of economic resources and a safety valve for Brazil’s growing population.  In 2003, Brazilian gross national income per capita was $7,510 while in the U.S. the figure was $37,750.  Annual population growth rate was estimated by the United Nations to be 1.24%, resulting in a population of nearly 202 million by 2015.  As of 2006, a study estimated that 42 million Brazilians are poor, a rate of about 22.7%.  In the face of such widespread poverty, it is understandable that many people there value the Amazon more for its economic potential than its ecological value.  However, the soils of the Amazon basin are generally not well suited to agriculture, with relatively short periods (two-to-three years) of cropping and long periods (five-to-seven years) of lying fallow to prevent the decline of soil fertility.  Population and economic pressures often prevent such management with the result being substantial depletion.