Amazon fires: G7 nations must do more than give spare change

Analysis: Billions of euros flow between the EU and Brazil each year and international nations are still consuming products grown in deforested areas

When fires ravaged Notre Dame cathedral in Paris, donations topped €1bn in a matter of days. Flush with cash, Emmanuel Macron announced the gothic cathedral would be rebuilt in five years.

With the Amazon rainforest burning, G7 nations – which represent half of global economic wealth – have mustered together $20m despite wildfires apparently being a “priority for discussions” at this year’s meeting in Biarritz.

The Amazon is the “lungs of our planet” and not just a set for David Attenborough documentaries. However, it seems global leaders are still just paying lip service to stopping the climate emergency.

Richard George, head of forests for Greenpeace UK, described the G7 offer as “chump change”.

Separately, the UK pledged £10m to help protect the Amazon, an amount Labour spokesperson Barry Gardiner described as an “embarrassingly tiny contribution” and said the “tragedy unfolding in the Amazon should not be used as a PR stunt”.

Of course, damage caused by these fires is permanent and no amount of money can recreate invaluable rainforests that have been growing for thousands of years.

However, when the flames have died down, let this be a lesson for international leaders in the importance of taking protection of the Amazon seriously.

Already this year, more forest has been cleared in Brazil than in the previous three years put together.

Billions of euros flow between the EU and Brazil each year and international nations are driving this destruction by consuming products grown in deforested areas. One example is livestock feed (usually soy) which the EU imports from Brazil tariff-free.

In an open letter published in April this year, more than 600 scientists and 300 Brazilian indigenous groups asked the EU to ensure that trade deals with Brazil respect the environment.

If land that is already cleared is looked after properly, experts say this can be done without reducing overall agricultural output, according to an article in The Conversation.

We could also impose sanctions to coerce the Brazilian government into looking after the Amazon. For example, the UN Security Council could prohibit the sale of all Brazilian timber and place sanctions on imports of beef raised in areas that have been deforested.

We must stop deforestation – doing so would be the cheapest and most effective way to combat climate change.

It’s clear we cannot rely on Brazil to look after the Amazon, and halting needless destruction of this rainforest is non-negotiable if we are going to limit global warming to 2C.

Our world will still be on fire once the Amazon wildfires have gone out – it’s time world leaders showed they are treating the climate emergency like an emergency.