Dear Mr Angry Brazilian,I am writing in response to your letter that I received last week about the Amazon rainforest in Brazil. We are sorry if any offence was taken due to this article this article, our intention was not to offend any readers but to raise the awareness about the deforestation that occurs in the Amazon, and to inform the readers of the matter.I understand your opinions and why you may be upset about our article, however don’t agree with all your points.
The reason why I believe that the UK has the right to interfere is the greenhouse effect. Burning trees contributes to the greenhouse effect significantly therefore deforestation can have large, lasting effects. Campaigns in other countries such as the wildness project in America to try and reduce emissions, In my opinion I think Brazil would benefit from a campaign to reduce the emissions coming from their country as that is mainly what ‘the wildness project does it educates and looks for volunteers to contribute to the cause.The point you made “Britain should not interfere in Brazil” I think we should as you say about the industrial revolution and how Brazil didn’t interfere with UK this is because times were different back then and no-one knew about the greenhouse effect so UK interfering with Brazil is a good thing because if the UK can stop Brazil cutting down as many trees and essentially getting rid of the worlds biggest carbon sink is bad for not just Brazil UK or South America its a massive problem for the whole world as the deforestation is releasing huge amount of Co2 into the atmosphere and damaging the O-zone Layer., I wouldn’t agree with this point also as a large percentage of the medicine used in the UK is made in the Amazon and Brazil, and therefore the UK has the right to an opinion.Without these studies below the cancer studies all over the world may not have been as successful, leaving terminally ill patients to die. As one of the world’s most powerful anticancer drugs is found in the Amazon on a plant called a periwinkle, I believe that the UK and many other countries have the right to interfere with the wellbeing of that country, in this case Brazil.
“The U.S. National Cancer Institute has identified 3000 plants that are active against cancer cells. 70% of these plants are found in the rainforest. Twenty-five percent of the active ingredients in today’s cancer-fighting drugs come from organisms found only in the rainforest”Yet another point I strongly disagree with is the point you made about during the industrial revolution, Britain cut down lots of its woodland so this means Britain shouldn’t try to stop Brazil from carrying out deforestation.
This is probably the point I disagree with the most for the reasons, getting rid of plastic bags was one of the many ideas Britain had to save energy. The reuse and charging for plastic bags in the majority of supermarkets helps save energy because as there is a fewer demand for them, fewer are made meaning fewer are needed to be disposed of resulting in less harmful gases when they are burned, less greenhouse gases are released.They also promote reusable bags to further reduce the amount of plastic bags in the UK and although Britain may cut down trees for the necessary reasons they try to promote other energy saving ideas. Another way the UK tries to increase energy saving is wind farms. Offshore wind farms are very popular in the UK, many cities house offshore wind farms, the domestic turbines produce renewable energy, and produce widely distributed energy and produces no greenhouse gases.Finally I disagree as you mentioned about the UK buying many items of furniture bought made out of tree’s from the AmazonSo even though Britain may have cut some trees down unintentionally, they have promoted other ways to save energy and save the environment rather than keep doing the wrong.I am sorry if my article caused any inconvenience, however I felt it was a huge growing issue and the awareness of this issue needed to be increased.Yours SincerelyTom Gregan