Hello, I'm Jae. Today we're going to talk about climate change, which we've always wanted to address, especially the Amazon National Park in Brazil, which is at the heart of the problem.
As you know, as soon as Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who was elected in January 2019, took office, the Brazilian government is lifting restrictions on the development of Amazon National Park, which has been protected in the name of environmental protection, developing for economic development, and organically logging and arson.
The Amazon is known to be so important that it produces 20% of Earth's oxygen that it is called Earth's lungs. In fact, since Brazil's Amazon development began in July 2019, the number of arson cases in the Amazon forest has increased by 300%.
The number of fires that broke out between January and August 2019 increased by 145% compared to the same period in 2018, and there was an article saying that more than 3 million species of animals and plants were life threatened.
With the clearing of the Amazon forest, the Brazilian government's move has naturally become a global issue and has caused anger and concern among many environmental activists. Not only environmentalists, but also ordinary people's perspectives are also great attention to the public's perspective.
In fact, the French president once said, "Amazon on fire is like our house on fire."
Leonardo DiCaprio, a famous Hollywood star and environmentalist, and Cristiano Ronaldo, a soccer star, were angry at the incident and tweeted that the Amazon forest should be protected for the planet.
So much so that the global public perception is that the Amazon was not Brazil's land, but also an environmentally important sacred land that should be protected, which is very important for producing oxygen on Earth.
But there is another opinion on this. Some say that environmental destruction of the Amazon forest is not a serious problem as people think, and that it will have a better impact in the end by improving the quality of life of Brazilians, citing the employment and GDP improvement of low-income families.
First of all, some say that it is meaningless to produce oxygen because it is used immediately again as it has scientifically released oxygen.
First of all, plants produce oxygen through photosynthesis. Here, the Amazon forest accounts for 16% of the photosynthesis on land. But the conclusion that 16% of photosynthesis can never happen is that oxygen production reaches 20%. It is said that the oxygen production that actually contributes to the Earth is close to zero.
Plants consume oxygen regularly during the day or night, but at night, they stop photosynthesis, so they consume oxygen made during the day again. Besides, not only regular plants consume oxygen, but all animals and microorganisms in the Amazon use oxygen.
In short, it's useless because to use up oxygen as much as you produce.
And anyway, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 0.03%. Considering that oxygen production in nature is absolutely proportional to carbon dioxide concentration, the amount of oxygen produced by Amazon doesn't mean as much as we think.
By 500, about 80% of Western and Central Europe were covered with forests. By 1350, the rate had decreased by 50%, and historians estimated that within that 800 to 1300 year period, French forests had decreased by 30 million hectares (130,000 square kilometers).
Germany also said that 70% of its territory was forested in 900 years, but only 25% remained in 1900.
Developed countries, which have accumulated wealth from these reckless deforestation, cannot stand trying to develop their countries in the same way as tropical countries such as Brazil and the Congo, and point to them as environmental destruction.
Carbon emissions from advanced countries around the world, including Germany, were higher while Brazil was clearing the Amazon forest. The countries that are causing more damage to environmental pollution they claim were those countries that were angry at Brazil's destruction of the Amazon.
This is indeed a huge contradiction. Of course, we'll have to hear from both sides on this point.
Brazil's process of clearing the Amazon forest now has already been a process that almost all countries in Europe have gone through for their own national development.
Michael Selenberger, author of the famous book, "Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us Allsays. " To protect true nature, supporting the economic development of underdeveloped countries is the final solution."
If economic development continues and the range of available technologies increases, farmers will clear forests using machinery and heavy equipment in a way that protects nature, and if economic development allows them to introduce life sciences and environmental technologies, artificial forest projects will expand. It is already being introduced by many countries around the world, and China is intentionally creating forests. And the same goes for our country, Korea. In the end, it eventually helps to protect the natural environment.
Statistically, there are more newly created forests than those that have disappeared in the past 35 years.
Of course, except for the ecosystem of Amazon forests and the oxygen problem, what would be the conclusion, rather than blindly oppose their clearing and drive them to evil? If you think about it, we support the economic development and the introduction of technology by underdeveloped countries, and I think it is a wise way to protect and create nature by using realistic judgment and technology.