According to Improving Land Use "Agricultural policies have a profound effect on land-use patterns. Decisions to subsidize the production of certain crops or inputs of course, intended to alter land-use patterns and to encourage producers to make their contributions in areas where there is an obvious national need. Thus countries with foreign exchange shortages seek to encourage the production of cash crops; those where food imports are high tend to encourage the production of food crops" (para.6). Abusing land had a lot of problems, and damage to our environment. Over thousands of years, people have increase number of people who people's apathy for the abusing land. The problem is that most people do not know about how the land badly misused can harm the environment. Moreover, there are a lot of landowners how do not have the right way for using the lands. In fact, there are some ways that can help to solve these problems which are taking care of the land, awareness campaign education, enforcing the law, and creating of organizations.
Abusing land is using the land for badly product. It is hard to define when the land badly misused started. There is not exactly time for beganaed. It was from the long time ago. The arguing could be between government and landowners who do not care about the lands. For example Brazil is a country with so much land rainforest that many countries are criticizing Brazil because they have been making tree species extinct. According to the Irish Times, "Many in Brazil's farming community are annoyed at international pressure to deny what they see as their right to exploit a natural resource”. The majority of countries criticizing Brazil for deforestation here are countries that have already chopped down their forests" ( para.13). These days, many country starts to discover the problem and they try to catch it before to getting bigger. Some business people who has many land, they just looking for the best way bring more money without caring what the land need to work on it.
First, taking care of the land is a great way to keep our environment to removing. Government should take control of land form the landowners that have not awarding for using the land. For example, government can buy the land from the landowners that have less experience in using it, because there are some people who do not care about their health land use. So, if we have some people who really do not care about the environment how can we fix the land badly misused problems? Therefore, usually the only one who can knows or controls the abusing land just the governments. They have able to learn what is happening in the future and they can quick plan to control the problem. They have to think about what is coming in the future, and they have to be already to face it. According to The Land Issue "If the land is misused, for example for nuclear waste disposal"; "they will do with the land what they want, and not what it's purpose is supposed to be"; "they will buy it for waste disposal and pollute it"; "they will build cottages"; "if there is no control, this land will be used for country-house building, it will be spoiled and everything will go wrong"(para.11). In fact, my country has suffered from this kind or problem, because it is impossible to make all people good or like what you want. Therefore, we have nothing to do except take care of it the big responsible for government is controlling the environment save.
Second, awareness campaign education is a good plan to change people who do not care about the environment. Because as we know that anything need to be done, also need some education, so we have like the abusing land problems we need to have some awareness by people like get people campaign education by explaining the abusing land problems, and damages, then they may realize this problem then they would focus on it. They might also try to solve it, because as it is important to the government it is also important to them. For example, as government we should show people the problem that we have been facing and suffering from, and show them the damages warning, even if it is small problem, we batter make it bigger than it is, because that will let them care of it, but if we make it smaller they will ignore it until becomes bigger. Education can be also plan to improve aware of people. It can be tech the children in the school because children education the fast way to learn the families and the parents. Everybody should learn the advantage and disadvantage of the environment from the school. There is one example that my country believes which is that one hand cannot clap, but the two hands can clap, that means that being united or gathering more people to find a solution is better than having lands useful. So, people help awareness campaign education is great way to solve not the land badly misused problems it is also a good way to solve any problems, because there would be a lot of helps, works, and new thoughts.
Third, enforcing the law is good way to people who really damage our environment. Enforcing the law is kind of punishment government can scare people who do not follow the rules. Most people do not believe in something until they see the events or see other people who have caught from the government. we do not have a solution for this issue except giving the fines or taking them to jail if the did something bad in the land. Therefore, this issue depends on the government's control, because if the government has a good control of people it may not have a lot of problems. So jail is the easy way to sacred the people who broking the rules. When they heard hat punishment the people who have bad behavior could stop or change their work on it. Government can put the persons who misused land short time in the jail; they may change their mind. According Improving land use" he most difficult but most important step in the whole process is to identify factors that can be manipulated by government to reverse the process of land degradation and improve land use. A variety of causes may be identified: growing the wrong crop on the wrong land; the land tenure system; the pricing structure for agricultural products; subsidies; incentives; taxes; or even outmoded laws or social customs. Governments may find it difficult to remove some constraints and changes may have to be phased in over a period of time." (para. 4). What the government should do is use strong law that makes people follow it. Enforcing the law is the fast way to control the people and the lands.
Finally, creating of organizations could be solution keep the lands safe. Government can create organization to distribution the land between the people. They can buy it for the farmers that know will work hard. According to "The Land Issue" "If they give it to the peasants, this is good"; "those who want to work the land will buy it"; "land will pass into the hands of those who are interested in getting more revenue from it"; "those who are willing to grow something, will do it actively"; "whoever wants to work land will do so"; "peasants will be working on their lands"; "those who are able to work, will work, and people will have a good living"; "those who really need land will buy it" (para.10). Therefore, the organizations should discover the lands for farms or industrial or builds or zoos or forests. Thus, the government should create organization for benefits of the land.
Opponents may say that the abusing land come from government and the entire problem is from the government. However, this is wrong; because if we think about it logically it is hard to see governments trying it damages their land. People should work with reform land hands to hands with the government to product food. Therefore, we should focus on the land badly misused problem, because it makes us suffer from many things such as less lands of farming, the less forests and less species. Therefore, what the government should do is enforce the law, take care of using lands, get people attention, and use the land with some thing useful. Using land perfect will safe the country of less poor people and less product food. In fact, if everyone cared about the environment, such as land farming or forest or anything is related to our environment, then we would have a great life.
In conclusion, we should focus on the problem of land badly misused, because it brings a lot of damages to our environment that we could not solve. Therefore, the government should take care of that by letting some people work on education or superintend the people who use their lands to using bad. We should also talk to the public about the any issue that we have to look at their thoughts and do what we thing is right. In fact, if everyone cares about the lands, government use it more carefully, education the landowners, using the enforcing the law or ordering of organizations, we will have a great life.
References
Poll, P. (2001, November 08). The Land Issue. The public opinion foundation database. Retrieved February 20, 2008, from http://bd.english.fom.ru/report/map/az/0-9/1246_4550/ed013009
The conservation and rehabilitation of African lands. FOOD AND
AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Retrieved February 20, 2008, from http://www.virtualcentre.org/in/library/CDlibrary/PUBS/Z5700E/z5700e00.htm#Contents
Walsh, H. (2005, October 28). New call for total beef ban. Irish
Times. Retrieved October February 20, 2008, from Lexis Nexis database.
Nakamoto, M . ( 2007, April 7). Tokyo's Assertive Governor Shakes
Off a Bad Press. Irish Times. Retrieved October February 20, 2008, from Lexis Nexis database.
Baileyy, S . ( 2006, June 28). NATIVE LAND CLAIM 'BACKLOG. Irish
Times. Retrieved October February 20, 2008, from Lexis Nexis database.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Friday, December 7, 2007
Rainforest Beef
Abstract
Changing the rainforest might be a big reason the Amazon and it’s forests are bearing extinction. The government should provide their farmers other ways to make money. The EU started a ban on Brazilian beef and crippled the international beef export market. Government should give warnings and punishments, and make cutting the forest down more difficult. On the other hand, Brazilian beef is one of best meats in the world, so it's difficult to ban it.
Do you eat Brazilian beef? Do you know what some of the Brazilian farmers do? Brazil is a country with so much rainforest that many countries are criticizing Brazil because they have been making tree species extinct. According to the Irish Times, "Many in Brazil's farming community are annoyed at international pressure to deny what they see as their right to exploit a natural resource. "The majority of countries criticizing Brazil for deforestation here are countries that have already chopped down their forests“ (2005, p.13). Some people have argued that deforestation has led to many different troubles. K. Mantell says, "Brazil's growing success as an exporter of beef is responsible for much of the recent rise in the rate of destruction of the Amazon rainforest, according to new research" (2004, p.1). However, H. Walsh (2005) said, Brazil is trying to remove the rainforest and change it to beef raising. Changing the rainforest might affect the environment. It seems that Brazilians are so eager to make money, they going to cut down rainforest, and not even worry about the health of the beef. Changing the rainforest might be a big reason the Amazon and its forests are becoming extinct. The government should provide their farmers other ways to make money. I hope farmers look for the advantages and disadvantages before they are deciding to remove the rainforest. I plan on writing about trying to stop extinction of forest.
First, government should give the farmers other resources to do their business. Second, the EU should ban Brazilian beef. Finally, Brazil should make cutting the forest down more difficult.
Brazil will keep its position as world’s biggest exporter of beef. According to one article, “Certain facts seem to support the farmers' claim that the rise of Brazil's beef industry has been at the Amazon's expense. A World Bank report last year estimated that cattle ranching occupied 75 per cent of deforested areas of the Amazon, a fifth of which has already disappeared.” "According to figures released by the Brazilian Confederation of Agriculture, over the 12-month period from August 2004 to July 2005, revenues from Brazilian beef exports totaled US$ 2.896 billion, 41% more than the US$ 2.057 billion registered between August 2003 and July 2004. Volume during this period went from 1.539 million tons exported between August 2003 and July 2004 to 2.188 million tons (August 2004 to July 2005)"(2005). If Brazil produces that amount will lead, to extinction of the forests, the trees advantages, carbon dioxide and natural life. In my viewpoint, it does not stop all the Brazilian beef, but they could limit production.
First, the government should give farmers other ways to make money. Usually people are trying to make money in any way. First, planting crops is a good way to increase exportation. According to G. T. Miller, Jr. "tropical forests touches the daily lives of everyone on Earth through the products and ecological services they provide. There forests supply half of the world's annual harvest of hardwood, hundreds of food products (including coffee, tea, cocoa, spices, nuts, chocolate, and tropical fruits), and many materials (including natural latex rudder, resins, dyes, and essential oils) that can be harvested
sustainably and generate twice as much revenue per hectare as timber production and three times as much as cattle ranching" (California.p.60). Also, a new way can help them increase their growth and improve their position in the world. There are many ways that can lead them to making money. Also, they have to take care of their children and their grand children in the future. Maybe their children face their life without forest, trees, wood, fruits etc… how can they live? Maybe it will be hard to find the trees in the future.
Second, the EU should ban Brazilian beef and cripple the international beef export market. According the article, “Call for action on Brazilian beef”, “Mr McCrea said he believed that the European Commission must act immediately to prevent the importation of Brazilian beef.” ‘However, even if the Commission does not act immediately, the supermarkets and, particularly, the catering industry, should now voluntarily stop using beef which is imported from this source,’" (2007,p.4). A call for a total beef ban might change the enforcement of the farmers business. Some of them may care about a safe environment, or others may fear for their business if they stop imports. This call is like an advertisement; any advertisement will affect the business in several ways. A number of issues are related to converting forest land to beef raising. Therefore, if the farmers do not see that side, they are going to lose their money. Maybe there are some people who cut forest without a permit. Therefore, those people have to be given punishment because they do not care about risk to the environment. Also, this punishment will give farmers a great warning if they cut without a permit.
Third, there are many ways to stop extinction of rainforest by making cutting it down more difficult. Brazil's government should give warnings and punishments for anyone who breaks the rules. K. Mantell says, "The international and domestic market forces currently promoting the cattle-driven deforestation described in CIFOR's report are much stronger than ever," he says. ‘Even with the most determined policy response, it might be hard to decisively curb deforestation. To limit the negative impact on Brazilian rainforests will require a massive effort.’"(2004, p.10). The law has to be conclusive to keep the environment. There is another way to make it difficult. Tax is a good idea to decrease the number of people who like the rainforest because tax will make farmers feel business is unsuccessful. Also maybe they will change their mind. Usually people hate the tax, so I think it is a great plan. Tax is going to give them less profit. I believe punishments or tax is a good solution for the problem of the rainforest.
Opponents of replacing rainforest do not believe there are problems will cutting down rainforest because they did not see the problems. Brazilian beef is one of the great meats in the world, so it's difficult to ban it. On the other hand, farmers would like to feel freedom in business because it's easy to make money. Some ime forests use wood for power projects plan. According the article the disappearing rainforests, "One pulp wood project in the Brazilian Amazon consists of a Japanese power plant and pulp mill. To set up this single plant operation, 5,600 square miles of Amazon rainforest were burned to the ground and replanted with pulpwood trees. This single manufacturing plant consumes 2,000 tons of surrounding rainforest wood every day to produce 55 megawatts of electricity to run the plant. The plant, which has been in operation since 1978, produces more than 750 tons of pulp for paper every 24 hours, worth approximately $500,000, and has built 2,800 miles of roads through the Amazon rainforest to be used by its 700 vehicles."(1996,p.53). Usually they can't use the trees or trees might make less money than beef. In my opinion, I believe forests are more helpful for us than allowing carbon dioxide to be released. According the article Amazon deforestation lower than last year says Brazil, "Less rain tends to fall in deforested areas and scientists fear that continued forest clearing could turn much of the region into savanna. A recent study in Science warned that a prolonged drought in the Amazon could lead to a massive die-off in the world's largest rainforest" (2005, p.8). Maybe Brazilian farmers affect Amazon in this way.
In conclusion, removing the rainforest and changing it to animal raising will lead Brazil to big environmental problems. The Brazilian government has to ban cattle raising before it gets risks. The UE got angry at what the farmers Brazil did so they ban banned imports of Brazilian beef. According to Irish Times, "First detected in the supposedly vaccinated state of Mato Grosso do Sul on October 10th the outbreak has led to a partial ban on Brazilian imports into the EU and highlights what Irish farmers say is the lax traceability and control measures in place in Brazil, which they claim warrant a total ban on Brazilian beef imports" (2005). Stop changing forests to animal; that will stop the risk to the environment. Warning and punishment will scare the discordant farmers Government should show people another way to make money. I deducted three solutions for that; government should give the farmers other resources to do their business; EU should ban Brazilian beef and the government make cutting down more difficult.
Reference:
Amazon deforestation lower than last year says Brazil. (2005, August 27). Mongabay.com. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0827-brazil.html
Call for action on Brazilian beef. (2007, November 12).
Farminglife.com. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.farminglife.com/farmingnews/Call-for-action-on-Brazilian.3469435.jp
Fears for Brazil rainforest rise with beef sales. (2005, October 28). Irish Times. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database.
Mantell, K. (2004, April 5). Demand for Brazilian beef threatens rainforest. scidev.net. Retrieved November 07, 2007, from http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readNews&itemid=1314&language=1
Miller, G.T. (1994) Environment: Problems and Solutions. The importance of Ecological Diversity. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Ch. 4, pp. 4-4 4-8
Rainforest FACTS. (1996). Rain-tree.com. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm
Walsh, H. (2005, October 28). New call for total beef ban. Irish Times. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database
Changing the rainforest might be a big reason the Amazon and it’s forests are bearing extinction. The government should provide their farmers other ways to make money. The EU started a ban on Brazilian beef and crippled the international beef export market. Government should give warnings and punishments, and make cutting the forest down more difficult. On the other hand, Brazilian beef is one of best meats in the world, so it's difficult to ban it.
Do you eat Brazilian beef? Do you know what some of the Brazilian farmers do? Brazil is a country with so much rainforest that many countries are criticizing Brazil because they have been making tree species extinct. According to the Irish Times, "Many in Brazil's farming community are annoyed at international pressure to deny what they see as their right to exploit a natural resource. "The majority of countries criticizing Brazil for deforestation here are countries that have already chopped down their forests“ (2005, p.13). Some people have argued that deforestation has led to many different troubles. K. Mantell says, "Brazil's growing success as an exporter of beef is responsible for much of the recent rise in the rate of destruction of the Amazon rainforest, according to new research" (2004, p.1). However, H. Walsh (2005) said, Brazil is trying to remove the rainforest and change it to beef raising. Changing the rainforest might affect the environment. It seems that Brazilians are so eager to make money, they going to cut down rainforest, and not even worry about the health of the beef. Changing the rainforest might be a big reason the Amazon and its forests are becoming extinct. The government should provide their farmers other ways to make money. I hope farmers look for the advantages and disadvantages before they are deciding to remove the rainforest. I plan on writing about trying to stop extinction of forest.
First, government should give the farmers other resources to do their business. Second, the EU should ban Brazilian beef. Finally, Brazil should make cutting the forest down more difficult.
Brazil will keep its position as world’s biggest exporter of beef. According to one article, “Certain facts seem to support the farmers' claim that the rise of Brazil's beef industry has been at the Amazon's expense. A World Bank report last year estimated that cattle ranching occupied 75 per cent of deforested areas of the Amazon, a fifth of which has already disappeared.” "According to figures released by the Brazilian Confederation of Agriculture, over the 12-month period from August 2004 to July 2005, revenues from Brazilian beef exports totaled US$ 2.896 billion, 41% more than the US$ 2.057 billion registered between August 2003 and July 2004. Volume during this period went from 1.539 million tons exported between August 2003 and July 2004 to 2.188 million tons (August 2004 to July 2005)"(2005). If Brazil produces that amount will lead, to extinction of the forests, the trees advantages, carbon dioxide and natural life. In my viewpoint, it does not stop all the Brazilian beef, but they could limit production.
First, the government should give farmers other ways to make money. Usually people are trying to make money in any way. First, planting crops is a good way to increase exportation. According to G. T. Miller, Jr. "tropical forests touches the daily lives of everyone on Earth through the products and ecological services they provide. There forests supply half of the world's annual harvest of hardwood, hundreds of food products (including coffee, tea, cocoa, spices, nuts, chocolate, and tropical fruits), and many materials (including natural latex rudder, resins, dyes, and essential oils) that can be harvested
sustainably and generate twice as much revenue per hectare as timber production and three times as much as cattle ranching" (California.p.60). Also, a new way can help them increase their growth and improve their position in the world. There are many ways that can lead them to making money. Also, they have to take care of their children and their grand children in the future. Maybe their children face their life without forest, trees, wood, fruits etc… how can they live? Maybe it will be hard to find the trees in the future.
Second, the EU should ban Brazilian beef and cripple the international beef export market. According the article, “Call for action on Brazilian beef”, “Mr McCrea said he believed that the European Commission must act immediately to prevent the importation of Brazilian beef.” ‘However, even if the Commission does not act immediately, the supermarkets and, particularly, the catering industry, should now voluntarily stop using beef which is imported from this source,’" (2007,p.4). A call for a total beef ban might change the enforcement of the farmers business. Some of them may care about a safe environment, or others may fear for their business if they stop imports. This call is like an advertisement; any advertisement will affect the business in several ways. A number of issues are related to converting forest land to beef raising. Therefore, if the farmers do not see that side, they are going to lose their money. Maybe there are some people who cut forest without a permit. Therefore, those people have to be given punishment because they do not care about risk to the environment. Also, this punishment will give farmers a great warning if they cut without a permit.
Third, there are many ways to stop extinction of rainforest by making cutting it down more difficult. Brazil's government should give warnings and punishments for anyone who breaks the rules. K. Mantell says, "The international and domestic market forces currently promoting the cattle-driven deforestation described in CIFOR's report are much stronger than ever," he says. ‘Even with the most determined policy response, it might be hard to decisively curb deforestation. To limit the negative impact on Brazilian rainforests will require a massive effort.’"(2004, p.10). The law has to be conclusive to keep the environment. There is another way to make it difficult. Tax is a good idea to decrease the number of people who like the rainforest because tax will make farmers feel business is unsuccessful. Also maybe they will change their mind. Usually people hate the tax, so I think it is a great plan. Tax is going to give them less profit. I believe punishments or tax is a good solution for the problem of the rainforest.
Opponents of replacing rainforest do not believe there are problems will cutting down rainforest because they did not see the problems. Brazilian beef is one of the great meats in the world, so it's difficult to ban it. On the other hand, farmers would like to feel freedom in business because it's easy to make money. Some ime forests use wood for power projects plan. According the article the disappearing rainforests, "One pulp wood project in the Brazilian Amazon consists of a Japanese power plant and pulp mill. To set up this single plant operation, 5,600 square miles of Amazon rainforest were burned to the ground and replanted with pulpwood trees. This single manufacturing plant consumes 2,000 tons of surrounding rainforest wood every day to produce 55 megawatts of electricity to run the plant. The plant, which has been in operation since 1978, produces more than 750 tons of pulp for paper every 24 hours, worth approximately $500,000, and has built 2,800 miles of roads through the Amazon rainforest to be used by its 700 vehicles."(1996,p.53). Usually they can't use the trees or trees might make less money than beef. In my opinion, I believe forests are more helpful for us than allowing carbon dioxide to be released. According the article Amazon deforestation lower than last year says Brazil, "Less rain tends to fall in deforested areas and scientists fear that continued forest clearing could turn much of the region into savanna. A recent study in Science warned that a prolonged drought in the Amazon could lead to a massive die-off in the world's largest rainforest" (2005, p.8). Maybe Brazilian farmers affect Amazon in this way.
In conclusion, removing the rainforest and changing it to animal raising will lead Brazil to big environmental problems. The Brazilian government has to ban cattle raising before it gets risks. The UE got angry at what the farmers Brazil did so they ban banned imports of Brazilian beef. According to Irish Times, "First detected in the supposedly vaccinated state of Mato Grosso do Sul on October 10th the outbreak has led to a partial ban on Brazilian imports into the EU and highlights what Irish farmers say is the lax traceability and control measures in place in Brazil, which they claim warrant a total ban on Brazilian beef imports" (2005). Stop changing forests to animal; that will stop the risk to the environment. Warning and punishment will scare the discordant farmers Government should show people another way to make money. I deducted three solutions for that; government should give the farmers other resources to do their business; EU should ban Brazilian beef and the government make cutting down more difficult.
Reference:
Amazon deforestation lower than last year says Brazil. (2005, August 27). Mongabay.com. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0827-brazil.html
Call for action on Brazilian beef. (2007, November 12).
Farminglife.com. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.farminglife.com/farmingnews/Call-for-action-on-Brazilian.3469435.jp
Fears for Brazil rainforest rise with beef sales. (2005, October 28). Irish Times. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database.
Mantell, K. (2004, April 5). Demand for Brazilian beef threatens rainforest. scidev.net. Retrieved November 07, 2007, from http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readNews&itemid=1314&language=1
Miller, G.T. (1994) Environment: Problems and Solutions. The importance of Ecological Diversity. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Ch. 4, pp. 4-4 4-8
Rainforest FACTS. (1996). Rain-tree.com. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm
Walsh, H. (2005, October 28). New call for total beef ban. Irish Times. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Abstract
Changing the rainforest might be a big reason the Amazon and it’s forests are bearing extinction. The government should provide their farmers other ways to make money. The EU started a ban on Brazilian beef and crippled the international beef export market. Government should give warnings and punishments, and make cutting the forest down more difficult. On the other hand, Brazilian beef is one of best meats in the world, so it's difficult to ban it.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Synthesis Ex
Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart is trying to attract hordes of happy customers to its business. It was successful to increase hold attention millions of customers in the US every day. According to USA Today, "it averages 100 million customers a week. That's 88.5 million more people than U.S. airlines fly in a week" (2003, p.1). Wal-Mart is one of the best wonderful stories. E. Locke says "Wal-Mart is one of the most impressive success stories in the history of business" (2004, p.4). There are three basic regulations in order to keep happy such a large number of customers; offer the best service to their customers, struggle for excellence, and create jobs.
First, I believe Wal-Mart’s policy of commercialism catches shoppers who have low income; those people are more easily made complacent than high class of shoppers. So Wal-Mart looks for normal people. E. Locke says, "Wal-Mart is especially popular among low-income shoppers who cannot afford the prices of the more upscale stores… In a free economy, companies that offer the best value for the dollar win and losers invest the money elsewhere.” (2004, p.2). Wal-Mart is a leader in management control, distribution and customer service. This is a result of the company’s ability to coordinate management supplier relations.
Second, I usually visit Wal-Mart every week. I am impressed by the way everything has been set to catch the attention of customers, the shelves looked full and tidy, the product clean and beautiful, and the prices. I enjoy when I visit Wal-Mart; it is not common that I faced a bad experience because it had many great suppliers. E. Locke says, “Wal-Mart’s key role in the 1996-99 economic boom came partly because of its legendary use of technology to analyze costs and speedy delivery of goods from its 30,000 suppliers to dozens of sprawling warehouses, say retail and financial analysts” (2003, p.28).
Finally, Wal-Mart has a good lead to the US economy because the largest private employer has given it more jobs. J. Hoenig says, “In 2005, Wal-Mart created 125,000 U.S jobs, and is continuously adding thousands each month” (2004, p.16).
Opponents of Wal-Mart say it is very good for shoppers and bad for competitors. Wal-Mart leads to many stories closing or not having success, even Walgreens; if it does not have a pharmacy, I believe it is not a winner. Many people, when they see Wal-Mart close any store, they are going to Wal-Mart because it is cheap and has everything. Also, there is a bad thing for its employees, according to the UFCWIU author who says, “one 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,750 per year” (2005, p.1). Instead, Wal-Mart does not care about small stores.
In conclusion, Wal-Mart is my favorite place to shop. It catches many American people and internationals also. It has been a great service. It is the most famous store I have heard of in my life. I did not see anybody hate it in the U.S. I wish to have only one of them; I’m going to be rich. The U.S. should thank Wal-Mart because it has given many jobs, a great service and struggle for excellence.
Wal-Mart is trying to attract hordes of happy customers to its business. It was successful to increase hold attention millions of customers in the US every day. According to USA Today, "it averages 100 million customers a week. That's 88.5 million more people than U.S. airlines fly in a week" (2003, p.1). Wal-Mart is one of the best wonderful stories. E. Locke says "Wal-Mart is one of the most impressive success stories in the history of business" (2004, p.4). There are three basic regulations in order to keep happy such a large number of customers; offer the best service to their customers, struggle for excellence, and create jobs.
First, I believe Wal-Mart’s policy of commercialism catches shoppers who have low income; those people are more easily made complacent than high class of shoppers. So Wal-Mart looks for normal people. E. Locke says, "Wal-Mart is especially popular among low-income shoppers who cannot afford the prices of the more upscale stores… In a free economy, companies that offer the best value for the dollar win and losers invest the money elsewhere.” (2004, p.2). Wal-Mart is a leader in management control, distribution and customer service. This is a result of the company’s ability to coordinate management supplier relations.
Second, I usually visit Wal-Mart every week. I am impressed by the way everything has been set to catch the attention of customers, the shelves looked full and tidy, the product clean and beautiful, and the prices. I enjoy when I visit Wal-Mart; it is not common that I faced a bad experience because it had many great suppliers. E. Locke says, “Wal-Mart’s key role in the 1996-99 economic boom came partly because of its legendary use of technology to analyze costs and speedy delivery of goods from its 30,000 suppliers to dozens of sprawling warehouses, say retail and financial analysts” (2003, p.28).
Finally, Wal-Mart has a good lead to the US economy because the largest private employer has given it more jobs. J. Hoenig says, “In 2005, Wal-Mart created 125,000 U.S jobs, and is continuously adding thousands each month” (2004, p.16).
Opponents of Wal-Mart say it is very good for shoppers and bad for competitors. Wal-Mart leads to many stories closing or not having success, even Walgreens; if it does not have a pharmacy, I believe it is not a winner. Many people, when they see Wal-Mart close any store, they are going to Wal-Mart because it is cheap and has everything. Also, there is a bad thing for its employees, according to the UFCWIU author who says, “one 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,750 per year” (2005, p.1). Instead, Wal-Mart does not care about small stores.
In conclusion, Wal-Mart is my favorite place to shop. It catches many American people and internationals also. It has been a great service. It is the most famous store I have heard of in my life. I did not see anybody hate it in the U.S. I wish to have only one of them; I’m going to be rich. The U.S. should thank Wal-Mart because it has given many jobs, a great service and struggle for excellence.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Rainforest Beef
Do you eat Brazilian beef? Brazil is a country with so much rainforest that many countries are criticizing Brazil because they have been making tree species extinct. Some people have argued that deforestation has led to many different troubles. However, H. Walsh (2005) said, Brazil is trying to remove the rainforest and change it to beef raising. Changing the rainforest might have cause and affect the environment. It seems that Brazilians are so eager to make money, they’ll cut down rainforest, and not even worry about the health of the beef. I plan on writing about trying to stop extinction of forest. First, government should give the farmers other resources to do their business. Second, the EU should ban Brazilian beef. Finally, Brazil should make cutting the forest down more difficult.
First, the government should give farmers other ways to make money. Usually people are trying to make money in any way. First, planting crops is a good way to increase exportation. Also, a new way can help them increase their growth and improve their position in the world. There are many ways that can lead them to making money.
Second, the EU should ban Brazilian beef and cripple the international beef export market. A call for a total beef ban might change the enforcement of the farmers business. Some of them may care about a safe environment, or others may fear for their business if they stop imports. This call is like an advertisement; any advertisement will affect the business in several ways. A number of issues related to converting forest land to beef raising. Therefore, if the farmers do not see that side, they are going to lose their money. Maybe some people cut forest without a permit. Therefore, those people have to be given punishment because they do not care about risk to the environment. Also, this punishment will give farmers a great warning if they cut without permit.
Third, there are many ways to stop extinction of rainforest by making cutting it down more difficult. Brazil’s government should give warnings and punishments for anyone who breaks the rules. The law has to be conclusive to keep the environment. There is another way to make it difficult. Tax is a good idea to decrease the number of people who like the rainforest because tax will feel the farmers are unsuccessful business. Also may they going to change their mind. Usually people hate the tax, so I think it is a great plan. I believe punishments or tax is a good solution for the problem of the rainforest.
Opponents of replacing some farmers do not believe the problems are rainforest cut down because they did not see the problems. Brazilian beef is one of best meats in the world so it's difficult to ban it. On the other hand, farmers would like to feel freedom in business because it's easy to make money. Some time forests use wood for project power plan. Usually they can't use the trees or trees might make less money than beef.
In conclusion, removing the rainforest and changing it to animal raising will lead Brazil to big environmental problems. The Brazilian government has to ban cattle raising before it gets risks. Stop changing forests to animal rsisinf; that will stop the risk to the environment. Warning and punishment will scare the discordant farmers Government should show people another way to make money. I deducted three solutions for that, government should give the formers other resources to do their business; EU should ban Brazilian beef and the make cutting down more difficult.
Reference:
Cheap Brazilian beef imports are subsidised by slave labour. (2006, January 5). Irish Times. Retrieved November 07, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database.
Fears for Brazil rainforest rise with beef sales. (2005, October 28). Irish Times. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database.
Kaufman, M. (2007, April 24). New Allies on The Amazon. Irish Times. Retrieved November 07, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database.
Rocha, J. (2006, December 22). How a 'Flying Squad' is stamping out the slave farms of Brazil. Irish Times. Retrieved November 07, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database.
Walsh, H. (2005, October 28). New call for total beef ban. Irish Times. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database
First, the government should give farmers other ways to make money. Usually people are trying to make money in any way. First, planting crops is a good way to increase exportation. Also, a new way can help them increase their growth and improve their position in the world. There are many ways that can lead them to making money.
Second, the EU should ban Brazilian beef and cripple the international beef export market. A call for a total beef ban might change the enforcement of the farmers business. Some of them may care about a safe environment, or others may fear for their business if they stop imports. This call is like an advertisement; any advertisement will affect the business in several ways. A number of issues related to converting forest land to beef raising. Therefore, if the farmers do not see that side, they are going to lose their money. Maybe some people cut forest without a permit. Therefore, those people have to be given punishment because they do not care about risk to the environment. Also, this punishment will give farmers a great warning if they cut without permit.
Third, there are many ways to stop extinction of rainforest by making cutting it down more difficult. Brazil’s government should give warnings and punishments for anyone who breaks the rules. The law has to be conclusive to keep the environment. There is another way to make it difficult. Tax is a good idea to decrease the number of people who like the rainforest because tax will feel the farmers are unsuccessful business. Also may they going to change their mind. Usually people hate the tax, so I think it is a great plan. I believe punishments or tax is a good solution for the problem of the rainforest.
Opponents of replacing some farmers do not believe the problems are rainforest cut down because they did not see the problems. Brazilian beef is one of best meats in the world so it's difficult to ban it. On the other hand, farmers would like to feel freedom in business because it's easy to make money. Some time forests use wood for project power plan. Usually they can't use the trees or trees might make less money than beef.
In conclusion, removing the rainforest and changing it to animal raising will lead Brazil to big environmental problems. The Brazilian government has to ban cattle raising before it gets risks. Stop changing forests to animal rsisinf; that will stop the risk to the environment. Warning and punishment will scare the discordant farmers Government should show people another way to make money. I deducted three solutions for that, government should give the formers other resources to do their business; EU should ban Brazilian beef and the make cutting down more difficult.
Reference:
Cheap Brazilian beef imports are subsidised by slave labour. (2006, January 5). Irish Times. Retrieved November 07, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database.
Fears for Brazil rainforest rise with beef sales. (2005, October 28). Irish Times. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database.
Kaufman, M. (2007, April 24). New Allies on The Amazon. Irish Times. Retrieved November 07, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database.
Rocha, J. (2006, December 22). How a 'Flying Squad' is stamping out the slave farms of Brazil. Irish Times. Retrieved November 07, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database.
Walsh, H. (2005, October 28). New call for total beef ban. Irish Times. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
New call for total beef ban
In H. Walsh’s article, "New call for total beef ban," he writes about people who ban buying beef from Brazil. Brazilian beef has risk and affects the environment. There are impacts to environment and society. The farmers were cutting the forests and changed it to beef selling. Also there are many people who hated it that people were changing from trees to beef selling. Diseased beef was the reason people feared risk in the market of beef selling. I agree with what the author says; there are three reasons for total beef ban, trying to stop the cutting of the forest, having a kind of punishment and crippling process of selling.
First, many people are trying to stop decreasing forests in Brazil. When the people around the world, see a ban like this imposed, after an outbreak of environment risk in Brazil, if they read this article, they might stop importing Brazilian beef. It will influence demand.
Second, we note a number of issues related to converting forest land to beef raising. If there is anyone who would like to sell, they should have clearance to sell. However, maybe there are some people who do it without a permit. Therefore, those people have to be given punishment, because they do not care about the risk to the environment. Also this punishment will give farmers a great incentive to do it with a permit.
Third, a beef ban will cripple the international export market. A call for a total beef ban might change the enforcement of the farmers' business. Some of them may care about a safe environment, or others may fear for their business if they stop imports. This call is like an advertisement; any advertisement will affect the business in several ways. Therefore, if the farmers do not see that side, they are going to lose it.
In conclusion, the presence of the rainforest helps protect us from global warming and keeps some of the rarest and most beneficial animals and their homes alive. If we stop changing forests to animal products, that will stop the risk to the environment. Punishment will scare the discordant farmers. The author was trying to cripple the process of selling. The call for a total beef ban is looking for three effects trying to stop the decreasing of the forest, having a kind of punishment and crippling the process of selling.
Reference:
Walsh, H. (2005, October 28). New call for total beef ban. Irish Times. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database.
First, many people are trying to stop decreasing forests in Brazil. When the people around the world, see a ban like this imposed, after an outbreak of environment risk in Brazil, if they read this article, they might stop importing Brazilian beef. It will influence demand.
Second, we note a number of issues related to converting forest land to beef raising. If there is anyone who would like to sell, they should have clearance to sell. However, maybe there are some people who do it without a permit. Therefore, those people have to be given punishment, because they do not care about the risk to the environment. Also this punishment will give farmers a great incentive to do it with a permit.
Third, a beef ban will cripple the international export market. A call for a total beef ban might change the enforcement of the farmers' business. Some of them may care about a safe environment, or others may fear for their business if they stop imports. This call is like an advertisement; any advertisement will affect the business in several ways. Therefore, if the farmers do not see that side, they are going to lose it.
In conclusion, the presence of the rainforest helps protect us from global warming and keeps some of the rarest and most beneficial animals and their homes alive. If we stop changing forests to animal products, that will stop the risk to the environment. Punishment will scare the discordant farmers. The author was trying to cripple the process of selling. The call for a total beef ban is looking for three effects trying to stop the decreasing of the forest, having a kind of punishment and crippling the process of selling.
Reference:
Walsh, H. (2005, October 28). New call for total beef ban. Irish Times. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Fears for Brazil rainforest rise with beef sales
Fears for Brazil rainforest rise with beef sales
In the author’s (2005) article, "Fears for Brazil rainforest rise with beef sales," he writes about the beef raising business which faced many problems in sales. Brazil is a country with so much rainforest that foot and mouth disease was diffusive, which led to affecting its level of imports to the EU. A group campaigned saying, “What about the rainforest?’’ This group was Irish, and supported Irish farmers against the threat of Brazilian imports. Many countries are criticizing Brazil because they have been making tree species extinct. Some people argued that deforestation has led to many different troubles. However, he said, Brazil is trying to remove the rainforest and change it to beef raising. There are three solutions that Brazil’s government can use to save Brazil’s rainforest: ban cattle raising, make it more difficult and give people other choices to make money.
First, the rainforest is very important in the environment. Plowing will impact the Amazon; because of that banning cattle raising is going to save its life. The Brazil government should let farmers know the risks to the environment.
Second, there are many ways to stop distinction of rainforest by making cutting it down more difficult. Brazil’s government should give warnings and punishments for anyone who breaks the rules. The law has to be conclusive to keep the environment. There is another way to make it difficult. Tax is a good idea to decrease the number of people who like the rainforest. Usually people hate the tax, so I think it is a great plan. I believe punishments or tax is a good solution for the problem of the rainforest.
Third, government should give farmers other ways to make money. Usually people are trying to make money in any way. First, planting crops is a good way to increase exportation. Also, a new technique can help them increase their growth and improve their position in the world. There are many ways that can lead them to making money.
In conclusion, removing the rainforest and changing it to animal raising will lead Brazil to big environment at environmental problems. The Brazil government has to ban cattle raising before it gets risks. Punishments or tax is going to be difficult for anyone who wants to change the rules. Government should show people another way to make money. I deducted three solutions for that: ban cattie raising, make it more difficult and give them other choices to make money.
Reference:
Fears for Brazil rainforest rise with beef sales. (2005, October 28). Irish Times. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database.
In the author’s (2005) article, "Fears for Brazil rainforest rise with beef sales," he writes about the beef raising business which faced many problems in sales. Brazil is a country with so much rainforest that foot and mouth disease was diffusive, which led to affecting its level of imports to the EU. A group campaigned saying, “What about the rainforest?’’ This group was Irish, and supported Irish farmers against the threat of Brazilian imports. Many countries are criticizing Brazil because they have been making tree species extinct. Some people argued that deforestation has led to many different troubles. However, he said, Brazil is trying to remove the rainforest and change it to beef raising. There are three solutions that Brazil’s government can use to save Brazil’s rainforest: ban cattle raising, make it more difficult and give people other choices to make money.
First, the rainforest is very important in the environment. Plowing will impact the Amazon; because of that banning cattle raising is going to save its life. The Brazil government should let farmers know the risks to the environment.
Second, there are many ways to stop distinction of rainforest by making cutting it down more difficult. Brazil’s government should give warnings and punishments for anyone who breaks the rules. The law has to be conclusive to keep the environment. There is another way to make it difficult. Tax is a good idea to decrease the number of people who like the rainforest. Usually people hate the tax, so I think it is a great plan. I believe punishments or tax is a good solution for the problem of the rainforest.
Third, government should give farmers other ways to make money. Usually people are trying to make money in any way. First, planting crops is a good way to increase exportation. Also, a new technique can help them increase their growth and improve their position in the world. There are many ways that can lead them to making money.
In conclusion, removing the rainforest and changing it to animal raising will lead Brazil to big environment at environmental problems. The Brazil government has to ban cattle raising before it gets risks. Punishments or tax is going to be difficult for anyone who wants to change the rules. Government should show people another way to make money. I deducted three solutions for that: ban cattie raising, make it more difficult and give them other choices to make money.
Reference:
Fears for Brazil rainforest rise with beef sales. (2005, October 28). Irish Times. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)