There is one main positive, ecological factor on the Amazon basin; it is the fact that a large amount of power will be created by HEP without damaging the atmosphere, like other power sources such as coal and oil. These sources of energy all add to the effects of global warming. The negative effects far outweigh the positive effects, as there are many negative effects of the HEP. First of all the many trees would have to be cut down to make space for a station and for power cables to transport the power. Secondly would be the flooding caused to the forest when the river is damned. Also the workers would need to be housed and so yet more trees would have to be cut down.
Alternatives to HEP in the Amazon would be sources of power such as coal, oil or nuclear. Coal and oil would have to be imported which would mean that they would be very expensive and are not renewable, so therefore not as practical as the HEP. Nuclear power is also not as practical as HEP because it is also not renewable as it will eventually run off then will have to be dismantled at a large cost.
- Why is it proving so difficult to introduce sustainable development in Amazonia?
The main problem that makes it so difficult to introduce sustainable development in Amazonia is the fact that the people in Brazil feel that are trying to interfere are hypocrites. They feel this because we are telling them to stop cutting down the rainforest but we cut down most of the trees in Britain during the industrial revolution. They feel that they should look after themselves first and build themselves a strong economy before looking after the forest and their environment. However they are trying as hard as they can to try and preserve the forest. The Carajas programme was set up to exploit the vast resources of the rainforest. The programme was very successful and sustainable development was maintained until other people began moving into the region illegally and began cutting down trees and accessing the resources at a much greater rate than the planned site. The fact is that they would rather sort themselves out and live a good life rather than have a poor life and look after the Rainforest.
- Why is Brazil likely to resist the ‘help’ of outside agencies such as the World Bank, WWF etc.?
It is not the fact that they don’t want to get into debt. They wouldn’t mind this but it is the high interest rate that puts them off the idea of borrowing any money to develop with. They also don’t want groups such as the WWF to get involved in their country because their main aim is to preserve the forest and look after the wildlife, which is maybe not the main aim of the people in Brazil, this is the same as most help that is offered to Brazil. Another reason is to give the impression of the country being self sufficient and not connected to debts.
- Identify who is involved in making decisions in Amazonia, and whom you think should be making the decisions.
There are two main decision makers in Brazil. They are, the people of Brazil and the government of Brazil. Amazons’ governor, Gilberto Mestrinho, rounds up the view of the government. He says that he values the lives of the people more than those of animals and plants. He says ‘I’m a conservationist, not a preservationist. The Amazon is not a museum-, as many foreigners want it to be. There are almost 17 million people living in the Brazilian part alone, and you can’t expect them not to interact with their surroundings. We can develop the Amazon while conserving it.’ The government has the most power about the decisions. The people of Brazil obviously also have a very large say on any decisions that affect them or their surroundings. The richer people that live in the main cities like Rio de Janeiro will have more of a say than the people that live in shanty towns on the edge of these cities or the tribes in the Amazon like the Para tribe.
I believe that the government should propose some ideas to the people of Brazil. Then they should decide on whether the ideas should go ahead or not.
