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
Friday, December 7, 2007
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.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Global Warming
Mohammed R
EAP-2
According to Bhattacharya, global warming is coming on around the world. It is very dangerous; it may cause extinction for the animals and plants. Some researchers studied and evaluated animals and plants affected by global warming. So people have to be ready for drastic effects of global warming. It is likely to have an impact on people’s health or the climate. Next, some of the mutations may inherently change people’s lives. How can we stop global warming? Some researchers say, it comes from nature, but other people say it comes from the environmental pollution. I believe global warming may affect the environment, and that we should control air pollution, use alternative solar energy and battle the deserts.
First, I think the air pollution problem is due to actions of industry. The best solution should be changing the burning policies of industries. For example, every country has an industrial area and it affects air pollution very much. In the past, we did not suffer from air pollution.
Second, solar energy would decrease global warming. We can use alternative energy such as another energy without the burning of fuels. Alternative solar energy will be able to help us to avert the problem of global warming. Alternative solar energy could be used for running of cars. Solar energy is more important than other energies because it does not pollute the earth.
Finally, battling deserts is going to be healthy for our environment. Some people would like to raise forests and gardens to use them. Deserts are giving us a negative result, so it would be great to keep saving the trees. People are using trees to make fires for energy; those people cause two problems, not saving the wood, and causing air pollution.
In conclusion, global warming will be inevitable and we should take care of it. Controlling air pollution’s impact might affect the environment. Next, we can change burning of fuels to alternative solar energy. We might decrease global warming by battling deserts. Those three, air pollution, alternative solar energy and the deserts battling would be the best solution for global warming.
Reference:
Bhattacharya, S. (2004, January 7). Global Warming threatens millions of
species. Newscientist.com. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4545-global-warming-threatens-millions-of-species.html
EAP-2
According to Bhattacharya, global warming is coming on around the world. It is very dangerous; it may cause extinction for the animals and plants. Some researchers studied and evaluated animals and plants affected by global warming. So people have to be ready for drastic effects of global warming. It is likely to have an impact on people’s health or the climate. Next, some of the mutations may inherently change people’s lives. How can we stop global warming? Some researchers say, it comes from nature, but other people say it comes from the environmental pollution. I believe global warming may affect the environment, and that we should control air pollution, use alternative solar energy and battle the deserts.
First, I think the air pollution problem is due to actions of industry. The best solution should be changing the burning policies of industries. For example, every country has an industrial area and it affects air pollution very much. In the past, we did not suffer from air pollution.
Second, solar energy would decrease global warming. We can use alternative energy such as another energy without the burning of fuels. Alternative solar energy will be able to help us to avert the problem of global warming. Alternative solar energy could be used for running of cars. Solar energy is more important than other energies because it does not pollute the earth.
Finally, battling deserts is going to be healthy for our environment. Some people would like to raise forests and gardens to use them. Deserts are giving us a negative result, so it would be great to keep saving the trees. People are using trees to make fires for energy; those people cause two problems, not saving the wood, and causing air pollution.
In conclusion, global warming will be inevitable and we should take care of it. Controlling air pollution’s impact might affect the environment. Next, we can change burning of fuels to alternative solar energy. We might decrease global warming by battling deserts. Those three, air pollution, alternative solar energy and the deserts battling would be the best solution for global warming.
Reference:
Bhattacharya, S. (2004, January 7). Global Warming threatens millions of
species. Newscientist.com. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4545-global-warming-threatens-millions-of-species.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)