US extreme right confirms environmentalists thesis: deforestation causes losses

The United States Trade Representative, Jamieson Greer, returned to the topic on Wednesday (7/22), during a hearing at the US Senate Finance Committee. According to Metrópoles and ADVFN, Greer stated that deforestation offers an “unfair advantage” to Brazilian producers over North American farmers and said that Washington intends to demand minimum environmental standards in its trade agreements.

The statement expands the scope of the argument: it left the pages of a technical report and became publicly part of the trade policy defended by the Trump administration in the US Congress.

The precedent is set. In June, the Office of the US Trade Representative concluded that Brazil has historically failed to enforce its own laws against illegal deforestation, which would have reduced costs and increased the availability of land for agricultural production. In July, the accusation was incorporated into the decision that imposed an additional tariff of 25% on some Brazilian products. The official document expressly mentions the “unfair commercial advantage” associated with deforestation.

The press showed where the facts used against Brazil come from. Folha highlighted that the American report cites the 2021 deforestation peak, which occurred precisely during the Jair Bolsonaro government, Trump's “partner”, and under the leadership of then minister Ricardo Salles. Folha also highlights the risk that recent advances in the fight against deforestation will be thrown aside by future governments. The international press, in force, highlighted the argument used by Washington. Reuters, AP and Guardian registered illegal deforestation among the commercial justifications.

Each increase in deforestation offers ready ammunition to governments and economic sectors interested in restricting the import of Brazilian products. This ammunition can take the form of tariffs, additional traceability requirements, disguised health restrictions, or private blockades by importers and investors. The US argument can be selective, opportunistic and full of contradictions. But the economic effect of this argument in Brazil continues to be real.

When it was presented by environmentalists decades ago, the goal of ending deforestation was treated as radical, unfeasible and contrary to development. Today, it is an official part of Brazilian climate policy under the Lula government and Marina Silva's management at the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MMA), and is also critical for protecting the national economy.

Its compliance mainly defends agriculture and mining, sectors exposed to international chains, as well as the country's reputation as a reliable supplier of any products. Therefore, Brazil needs to reach 2030 with verifiable results, permanent monitoring and guarantees that no government will cause another explosion of forest destruction.

In this context, Congressional decisions that encourage new occupations and reduce protected areas also assume the character of economic sabotage. An example of this action is the Senate, which has just approved the withdrawal of 486 thousand hectares, almost 40%, from the Jamanxim National Forest, in Pará, opening space for agricultural exploration and the regularization of occupations and mining activities. The measure goes to presidential sanction.

Deforestation is a crime that does not pay off, not even financially. Brazil knows the cost of environmental devastation because it already pays a huge price for being a tropical country whose climate stability depends on the conservation of its ecosystems. Now, you also start to recognize the commercial mechanism that your competitors are willing to use.