Original subtitles

WwW.SubYab.CoM Subtitles by explosiveskull

The Amazon Jungle,

the largest tropical rainforest in the world,

is burning.

The forest contains ten percent of the planet's biodiversity

and plays a crucial role in global climate stability.

Over 20% of the forest has already been lost

and projections show that at this rate,

there won't be much left by the turn of the century.

In 2019, the Amazon experienced

a devastating and unprecedented fire season,

with over 40,000 reported fires

and 3500 square miles of forest lost.

It's estimated that an area the size of a soccer field and a half

is lost every minute.

Our team, led by award-winning filmmaker Michal Siewierski,

decided to embark on an investigative journey

to uncover the real reasons behind

the catastrophic destruction of the Amazon forest.

We're already seeing consequences

of deforestation and climate change.

In South America, there are almost double the rate

of fires that there were historically.

You know, everybody's aware

that there is environmental damage happening.

People know that the, the Amazon is being lost,

but I don't think that most people really connect it to what's on their fork

at that particular moment, and that's what's got to happen.

People have to realize we've got a choice.

We can choose to save the Amazon

or we can choose to lose it forever.

The choice is right here on our plate.

Many people don't understand that when they eat meat

in Los Angeles, California, or New York,

that meat could have been the result

of deforestation in Brazil.

Stop anyone on the street and ask them,

why are the rainforests being cut down?

Some of the slightly more aware people might say palm oil,

but most people would say like, "Oh, because of wood for houses."

And they would have no idea that there's a connection

between animal agriculture and deforestation.

And it's all wrapped up in that burger

and for them to sell it at $2.95 is, is a bargain.

That's our future. That's the, that's the rainforest.

That's our soil, that's the air, that's where your children are going to be growing

their food in the future. That's really what we're eating.

The connection from the destruction of the rainforest

to grow soy, to feed animals,

to your burger on the table or your steak on the table, it's not easy to track.

When we talk about soy, people should be clear, we are not talking about tofu.

We're talking about a crop that is grown

primarily for animal feed.

About 70% of soy is grown for animal feed,

as well as other non-direct food uses like biodiesel.

When we say soy, we really are talking about meat.

So, the soy that is grown in the Amazon

primarily goes to the European and American markets.

They ship the soy overseas,

put them in these giant machines called crushers,

and turn them into feed for livestock

and then that's used to produce beef to feed people.

And that's what we buy when, you know, you go to fast food chains.

You're basically, in some ways,

eating soy that was grown in the Amazon

or other parts of South America.

Fire has been used by people

for thousands of years as a way

to clear large forested areas.

But why, in this day and age,

are modern farmers still using

this devastating and unsustainable practice?

People are burning the forest to plant soy

because it's the easiest way to do it.

You can go into an area that has been undeveloped,

cut it down, burn it, grow soy and sell it to companies.

Large international corporations

will give you the funds to do it.

So, when a forest in the Amazon is

cut and burned, it puts a lot of nutrients into the soil.

Once the forest is burned down, you can grow soy in it,

you might be able to get a crop or two,

but eventually it's just going to dry out.

Uh, tropical rainforests aren't, uh, made

to continuously grow crops in that way.

They generally will burn the forest,

grow something, and then move on.

When you have an entire economic system

that is based on destroying the rainforest

and selling it to consumers,

it's going to take some real agitation

in order to change that.

Global warming is a controversial topic,

but many scientists believe that deforestation

plays an important role in the process.

Fewer forests means more greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere,

which in turn increases the severity of climate change.

In the Amazon in particular,

and, and other rainforests as well,

once you cut down the existing vegetation,

it's not going to grow back into a rainforest,

it's going to turn into a much drier type of ecosystem,

a non-native ecosystem,

and that's going to be extremely prone to fire

as well as the fact that all of that carbon

that had previously been stored in that forest

has now been released into the atmosphere.

It seems like climate change,

people are slowly starting to take it seriously

and one of the ways to fight climate change

is through carbon sequestration. Oceans and the rainforests

are the best places for carbon sequestration.

So, rather than the tropical rainforest serving

as a carbon sink that keeps carbon out of the atmosphere

and helps mitigate against global warming,

when you cut it down and burn it,

you're sending all of that carbon out

and you're, you're causing a major emission

of greenhouse gases in a system that should be trapping greenhouse gases.

And that has to do, also, with the amount of emissions that the cattle produce,

mainly in the amount of methane.

What we have noticed with the deforestation,

there was actually a change in the soil microbial community

that also produce methane or consume methane.

And what we found is that actually the,

especially the methane consumers,

is a bacteria that use methane as their source of carbon.

They are actually significantly reduced in the soil.

And so suggesting there is going to be less methane uptake

once the deforestation has happened.

We actually can significantly reduce our overall emissions

by eating less meat or eating no meat whatsoever.

Meat is responsible for more

climate pollution than all the cars, ships, trucks,

and planes in the world, combined.

This is a really big issue,

and it doesn't get enough attention.

Deforestation alone, uh, accounts for something

around 15% of total global warming pollution,

and yet it gets just two percent of the funding to address the climate crisis.

I was flying from Argentina to New York,

and we were flying over the rainforest and it was the middle of the night

and I looked at a map,

you know, the little sky map,

and we were flying over the jungle,

and I looked out the window and there were just lights everywhere

and I was trying to figure out what city we were flying over.

I was like, "Are we flying over Brasilia?"

Because there was, like, lights to the horizon,

and I realized they weren't city lights, they were fires.

And it was everywhere I looked,

there were fires just burning and burning and burning,

but in lines, so it was all deforestation.

And just the immensity of that struck me.

Deforestation also affects

the over two million people that live in

and depend on the forest for food and shelter.

To this day, indigenous populations in Brazil

and other countries in South America

are still being kicked out of their lands,

even though these are public areas

under federal jurisdiction and protected by law.

In 2018, 135 Indians were murdered in Brazil

and there have been over 1,000 registered cases

of violence, abuse, death threats,

and rape of indigenous people.

The genocide of Indians in Brazil started 500 years ago

when the country was first colonized

and it still occurs to this day.

So, there has been very strong laws in Brazil of late

for the protection of indigenous territory

that's been identified as being the traditional territory

and the occupied territory of indigenous people.

There is a great fear that as of the most recent election,

uh, the president of Brazil has pledged

that he's going to remove that protection.

One of the crazier things we heard

from President Bolsonaro was that he said

he wished that the Brazilian cavalry

had been as effective as the American cavalry

and eliminated more native populations.

The attitude is we want to get native peoples off the land

so we can bring in cattle and soy,

which is what progress is.

I mean, to me, I, I don't see progress

as converting, uh, an ancient ecosystem

that provides life to the whole planet

to a monoculture that just serves big businesses

as a positive or as a sign of civilization.

To the contrary, I mean, this is an abuse that we don't need.

Rainforests provide habitat

to over 80% of plants and animals living on land,

but deforestation destroys their habitats

and diminishes biodiversity.

Scientists estimate that 4,000 to 6,000 species

go extinct every year due to deforestation alone.

The rainforests are largely

what make this earth habitable for us.

Rainforests are one of the most

biologically diverse ecosystems in the world,

which means that there's a lot of animals

that live there and only there in very unique places

and, you know, that... that's where they live and they can't live anywhere else,

and when you cut the forest down, the animals are gone. They've got nowhere to go.

This might sound sort of like a hippie would say this, but it's actual science,

is our earth is a system, and nothing exists in isolation.

All life relies on other life

and it relies on the sustainability

and health of other ecosystems.

And as humans, we have this pride in the stupidity

that makes us think that we can destroy part of the world

and not affect us, and what we're realizing now is that's not the case.

When you destroy the rainforest, you're destroying yourself.

The Amazon rainforest is considered by many

to be the largest natural pharmacy in the world.

It's home to an abundance of plants

renowned for their medical properties

and it's estimated that 25% of all the drugs used today

are derived from rainforest plants.

The protection of these natural elements is fundamental

to maintaining this incredible hot spot of biodiversity.

It's recognized that the production of meat

plays a key role in deforestation and climate change.

But in recent years, meat consumption

has also been linked to numerous chronic diseases.

In 2014, the World Health Organization

classified processed meat as a group one carcinogen,

the same category given to cigarettes.

Red meat was assigned to group 2A,

when it comes to cancer risk,

the same group as the pesticide DDT.

Oh, as a physician, I think one of the best things

people can do for their health is reduce

their consumption of meat or eliminate it altogether.

The scientific evidence is becoming overwhelming

that the more animal muscle that we consume,

the higher our risk of clogged arteries and colon cancer

and a host of other diseases.

So, no, I think the less meat we eat,

the healthier we're going to be.

Not only is meat consumption linked to heart disease and to stroke,

but it's also linked to many of the most common forms of cancer.

Probably the big standout is colorectal cancer,

which is a huge killer in the United States

and in many other countries.

It's the meat itself,

but it's also the meat-cooking processes.

As meat is headed up in the oven,

carcinogens form on the meat.

There's a link between meat and Alzheimer's disease

that came as a huge surprise.

Starting in 1993, researchers in Chicago

tracked what people were eating

and they tracked who developed Alzheimer's disease

and who didn't and one of the first things they discovered

was that the fat that is predominant in meat, saturated fat,

could triple your risk of getting Alzheimer's disease.

Now, the good news is, if you're not eating it,

then your risk was cut hugely.

It's estimated that if meat really sold

for what it honestly cost to produce,

if the beef producers had to pay

for all the water that irrigates the alfalfa,

that's government subsidized, that's...

all the water that's polluted from the slaughterhouse,

all the soil that runs off the corn and soy bean fields,

all the pesticides and herbicides that are sprayed on those grains

that wind up causing cancer,

if they had to pay for the therapies

of the farm workers spraying those chemicals.

This is unsustainable,

it's a spectacularly expensive substance,

animal flesh these days.

Small family farming operations

are often swimming in debt

while agribusiness conglomerates are thriving.

But despite not generating many jobs,

destroying the Amazon forest, and polluting the environment,

big agribusiness receives billions in tax subsidies,

while small family farmers receive

on average ten times less in incentives.

Those same small farms are responsible

for producing 80% of the food that feeds the planet.

Agribusiness only exists because of tax subsidies.

You remove all federal local subsidies

from the production of animal agriculture,

a pound of beef would cost $100.

A gallon of milk would cost $75.

A family of four going to McDonald's without subsidies

would spend $120 on their meal.

So our tax dollars subsidize an industry

that's destroying our health

and destroying the health of the planet

and if we speak up about it,

we risk being thrown in jail and killed.

If we produced and consumed

more plant products instead of animal products,

this would mitigate much of

the human generated greenhouse gas emission

and would provide a home once again

for the countless wild species displaced

due to animal agriculture each year,

but reducing the consumption of meat

often times makes people concerned.

Will you get enough nutrients?

And what about protein?

The question often comes up is to how much of a diet change do I need to make,

and my answer is any step you make is a good step.

So, when people reduce meat consumption, that's good.

That said, I have to say that when people get it out of their lives completely,

they really get their diet into high gear

and their, their health improves dramatically,

but any step is a good step.

One shocking and little-known fact

is that deforestation increases the prevalence

of diseases all around the world,

including malaria, Zika, dengue fever, SARS,

Ebola, leptospirosis, and many others

because deforestation changes how and where

these animals transmit these diseases.

Once their natural habitat

and ecosystem balance becomes disrupted,

they end up getting closer to small towns surrounding those areas,

increasing the chances of transmitting diseases to humans.

Deforestation also affects

the quality of the air.

When tons of harmful and toxic particles

are released into the atmosphere during these fires,

the particles travel by wind currents,

and end up affecting not only the local populations,

but people in the big cities as well.

Forests play a key role in local water cycles

by helping to keep a balance between the water on land and the water in the atmosphere.

But when deforestation and degradation occur,

that balance can be thrown off,

resulting in changes in precipitation and river flow,

which affect the climate both locally and on a global scale.

You're seeing that all around the world, the consequence of that

is not only destruction to the ecosystems,

but actually, uh, the entire Amazon basin

is having increasing difficulty supporting agriculture.

It'll be difficult to maintain the kind of agriculture

that we have now in just 25 years.

Um, weirdly, the agribusiness companies

that are financing deforestation are also imperiling

their own ability to operate in the long run.

There just won't be enough water

if you don't have the forest to provide it.

The rainforest has a lot of rain.

It's a very wet ecosystem

and that rain and the water cycles through it.

When you cut the forest down,

you're allowing the sun to penetrate to the ground,

to the vegetation and along the edge it continues to dry out

and the more people move into the forest, cutting away at the edges,

the more that that drying penetrates into the forest.

The result of that has been a real dramatic increase

of forest fires in areas

where there never would have been fire.

They wouldn't have been fire-prone

because of all the moisture in the ecosystem.

Because the soil in the deforested areas

is usually poor in nutrients,

many farmers are forced to use more resilient GMO crops

that can withstand harsh conditions

and larger amounts of pesticides,

but these excess pesticides end up in the food chain.

The grain is fed to the cattle,

which are then eaten by humans.

Also, the pesticides run off the fields

to the water beds and rivers,

creating a lot of pollution,

disturbing the ecosystems and causing disease.

The overuse of pesticide and fertilizer

is one of the main contaminants for water pollution.

So, not only are these crops causing forest loss and causing climate change,

they're also causing a local water pollution crisis.

They are cutting down the forest,

they're changing the ecosystem,

they're dumping pesticides on the ground,

destroying the ability of that land

to produce food for the people around it.

Hundreds of environmental activists

are killed every year all over the world.

With the majority being indigenous people,

the Amazon is one of the areas with the most tension.

Last year, Brazil was once again the deadliest country

for environmentalists and despite efforts

by national environmental agencies, justice is rare.

It's become increasingly dangerous for people

on the ground in a lot of these countries to resist.

It's become increasingly dangerous for people on the ground

to expose what some of these activities are

and I think that we have a relative degree of safety

and freedom here and, and I think that's why it's incumbent on us

to give voice to the people who, um, can't speak for themselves in a lot of these counties.

Animal agriculture is a huge industry

and a hugely powerful industry

and a hugely violent and destructive industry.

Not just towards the animals,

not just towards the environment,

but towards activists as well.

I mean, activists have been killed

for standing up to cattle ranchers.

But still like, so many local legislatures

and so many politicians essentially work for agribusiness.

Our team went to the state of Bahia

to meet with Ernst Gotsch,

a Swiss farmer and researcher

that moved to Brazil in the 1980s.

For the last 40 years, Ernst has developed techniques

that combine agricultural production

with forest regeneration.

By combining aggressive pruning

and innovative agroforestry techniques,

Ernst showed the world that degraded areas

can be regenerated and that the forest

can be exploited without being destroyed.

The set of principles and techniques he developed

became globally known as syntropic farming.

Its practical applications can be seen

in several large farms around the world

and on his own property where he was able

to regenerate over 1,000 acres of degraded land.

On the other side of the country, one of Ernst Gotsch's students

is following in his footsteps

and applying the same principles in his own syntropic farm.

Jua Pereira, a young biologist and farmer,

shared his thoughts on the burning of the Amazon forest.

The tragedy of this continued destruction

of the rainforest in Brazil

is that it doesn't need to happen.

That food can be developed in cleared land,

they don't need to destroy more rainforest.

It's just a question of doing what's right.

That might happen because of government policy,

but it also can very well happen

because the public is demanding it,

and the consumer is demanding it as well.

We're talking about very basic practice changes,

like growing crops on previously deforested land

instead of burning down new, uh, rainforest.

Putting cover crops when there's not corn or soy growing.

Um, having buffer zones next to waterways.

These are really basic, affordable things

that often actually make farmers more money in the long term.

Some agribusinesses in Brazil

are beginning to transition to intensive farming,

which confines the cattle into smaller areas

and results in less native forest destruction,

but researchers warn that intensive farming

comes with its own set of problems.

I do think that we, as a society,

need to dramatically reduce our consumption of meat.

It's both good for the planet and good for us,

but the big agribusinesses have a role to play as well

and they should be engaging in the basic good practices

to hang on to the forest that we have left

and not to pollute the already damaged waterways.

Our journey took us to Tucson, Arizona,

home to Biosphere 2, the largest simulated rainforest

research facility in the world.

Biosphere was perhaps best known

for two missions conducted in the early 1990s,

in which crews were sealed inside the enclosure

to study survivability.

Nowadays, Biosphere 2 is home to several

world-renowned scientists who conduct controlled experiments

in order to study complex environmental questions.

Biosphere 2 is really a remarkable facility.

It offered a really unique opportunity

to look at how these systems respond to changes

like carbon dioxide, like moisture, like temperature,

and so that began the shift for Biosphere 2

moving away from having people live inside,

to moving to one as a large earth environmental science laboratory.

Actually, the largest earth environmental science laboratory.

It is impossible to think that we'll ever recreate nature

as it occurs naturally outside

and all of its intricacies and complexities,

and so Biosphere 2 is a test lab.

We can do things like subject it to a drought,

we predict that the tropics are going to continue to get warmer and drier,

well, what's that mean for those systems?

I think the biggest lesson so far to come out of Biosphere

is how little we truly understand earth systems as a whole,

how those systems are interconnected,

and how those systems are impacted

by the changes that we see coming their way.

We were able to take our rainforest,

run it through different levels of CO2

and look at how its response compared

to those that the model predicted.

And what we found is that our system,

like that predicted for the tropical areas in South America,

it saturated at about the same level.

What happens when we surpass this level?

Well, now it means there's nothing out there

that is absorbing it or taking the place

of those rainforests and now rather than that CO2

going up at a particular pace,

now we've accelerated it significantly.

And so, what we learn here potentially

has real world applications

and regardless of how much we learn

or how much we think we know,

it's extremely important

to continue to maintain

that biological diversity in those systems,

because we just don't understand what the implications

of losing those systems is going to be.

We have an idea, but I don't think we fully comprehend.

And we all have an inherent desire to survive and persist,

and if we're not able to adapt to changes coming our way,

it often times means,

when species can't adapt, you see them go extinct.

Despite the global concern about the Amazon forest,

most people interested in helping the cause

feel powerless due to the distance,

complexity, and scale of the problem.

So what can we, as regular citizens, do to help?

I think the challenge that we face

is people may have great concern

about what's happening in the Amazon or elsewhere,

but people don't know what to do to act on this concern.

Look, at the individual level,

uh, I think there's two big things people can do.

One, reduce the amount of meat that people are eating.

Most people in the developed world, uh, eat way too much meat

and it's not good for you and it's not good for the planet.

But the other thing that we can do

to drive change on a systematic level

is for consumers to go talk to the brands

that they patronize about these issues.

Just sending an email to the CEO of a big company

linked to deforestation actually can get heard,

but, you know, what's even more important is if you go on social media,

send them a message, if you talk in person to the manager

of a fast food restaurant or a supermarket chain,

that pretty soon starts to make its way up the food chain

in the corporation and they start to say,

"Hey, we're hearing about this, we're worried that customers are leaving us

because of our connection to climate pollution

and to deforestation and going over to our competitor

who's doing more to deliver sustainable products."

The only way corporations become good corporate citizens

is when they're held accountable by people.

Every corporation in the world, for the most part,

will get away with whatever they can get away with.

You know, their goal is to make their product as cheaply as possible

and sell it for as much as possible, you know,

to keep their shareholders and their board happy.

They will engage in the worst corporate practices

unless we hold them responsible.

I think what we found over and over again

is that when consumers bring urgency around these issues

to companies, they're actually incredibly responsive.

These companies value their brands

over any other asset in their company,

so when that brand is threatened,

when consumers start to think about their brands

not as a wholesome snack or meal,

but rather as a driver of ecological destruction

and human rights abuse on a vast scale,

that's going to threaten the value of their company

and that causes even the most cold-hearted

corporate executive to sit up and pay attention.

We've also found that employees

of these companies have outsized influence.

So, one of the strongest voices for change

even in companies that have done the most damage

is from their own employees.

People increasingly want to work at companies

where they feel like they're doing something good for the world.

Uh, that's true even of the agribusiness giants,

of fast food chains, of mainstream supermarkets.

In Brazil, agribusiness is protected

by laws that support the industry's actions,

but how is this possible?

The people in power in South America

are often those with ties to big agribusiness.

Many of the most powerful politicians in Brazil's government

are connected to the meat and dairy industries

and they create laws for their own benefit.

This group of politicians

is called The Ruralista Congressional Block.

We've seen tremendous environmental rollbacks here in our country,

but sadly it doesn't really compare to what's happening in Brazil.

Tragically, Brazil made a huge amount of progress

on reducing deforestation over the last decade.

Um, they cut deforestation by more than 2/3

through both private sector efforts and government action.

They improved environmental enforcement,

they created both new national parks and indigenous areas.

The big soy and cattle companies

actually took significant efforts to reduce deforestation

in the Brazilian Amazon that worked.

Unfortunately, due to issues unrelated to the environment,

Brazil elected a man who, in office,

has set about gutting environmental protections.

I think the biggest threat to the environment

that we've seen from the Bolsonaro era so far

hasn't been any specific policy change,

uh, instead he's given farmers the sense of impunity

that no matter how much they deforest,

no matter much illegal activity they engage in,

no matter how many indigenous people they displace from their land,

the government won't take action and as a result,

we've seen big soy and cattle ranchers deforest

at probably an unprecedented scale.

Just this past month, we saw 1,345 square kilometers

of the Brazilian Amazon go up in smoke.

Uh, that's an area the size of Los Angeles

cleared of native vegetation in just one month.

Uh, one of the things that Bolsonaro has done

is announce environmental inspections before they happen,

so that the people committing crimes can get ready

and try and cover up the damage that they caused.

It's pretty crazy, but it's a way that they are trying

to facilitate deforestation on a mass scale.

What Bolsonaro is doing is terrible,

but I think for people all over the world who are watching this issue,

it's important to understand that he couldn't do it alone.

It's big companies, uh, in the soy and cattle industry

that are directly driving this deforestation.

Industry has an enormous influence on government policy.

Corruption is such a massive problem

and we want the big cattle agribusiness food companies

to stop playing that game.

The Amazon problem often starts

far way from the jungle.

Both American and international companies

also play a role in deforestation by creating demand,

influencing local politics,

and even paying farmers to destroy the forest.

I believe that industry in the United States

has an enormous impact on policies of other countries.

Uh, some American businesses do play a very active role

in the destruction of the Amazon forest.

One of the major corporations that operates internationally

is Cargill, and Cargill is very active

in destroying the rainforest, uh, to grow different, uh, crops,

soy is one of the main ones, in that rainforest.

If these big companies stopped buying

from producers engaged in deforestation,

regardless of who was in government,

uh, there just wouldn't be the incentive

to engage in these bad practices.

Large international corporations,

they're providing the incentives,

they're providing loans, they're building infrastructure,

and they're providing the ability to access the forest.

The farmers will grow it wherever it will be bought from,

and as long as these companies

continue to pay people to bulldoze the forest,

they're going to continue to do it.

Farms in Brazil are very different

from those found in the U.S. and Europe.

Their sheer size is often larger

than big metropolitan areas,

therefore when we hear that a farm area

has been cleared for cattle grazing or growing soy,

the scale of the impact can be devastating.

When we're talking about farms in Brazil and farmers,

I think it's important for people to realize

that this is on a scale very different

from what you normally see in the Unites States.

Uh, here in the United States, you know, 2,000 acres is a large farm,

in Brazil, it's on a totally different scale.

Um, you know, what we found in South America,

we routinely came across single so-called farms

that were 50,000, 100,000 acres in size

and what that means is that you had 50,000, 100,000 acres

of forest or other native habitat for wildlife

just totally cleared within a matter of months.

We have done a series of investigations

into who is driving deforestation in South America,

and we've consistently found it's a relatively small

handful of companies people probably haven't heard of.

Cargill, Bonge, JBS, ADM and a few others,

which are the leading agribusinesses,

but those companies depend on markets

from name brand companies.

McDonald's, Burger King, Stop & Shop,

Giant, Walmart, Mars, Carrefour,

and all the big supermarkets and fast food chains.

We've asked them to shift their purchases

to more responsible companies.

So far, all we get from the big consumer brands

is concern about what's happening to the forests of South America,

concern about climate change, but no discernible action.

So we work very closely

with these large consumer companies

that are buying products from companies like Cargill,

and there are a huge number of companies

that we work with, Costco and Walmart and McDonald's,

that have said that they don't want rainforest destruction in their product.

And I think it... it's time for these companies,

companies like McDonald's, like Whole Foods,

like Costco, like Walmart, like Target,

to stop buying from these companies.

Brazil has many laws set in place to protect the environment,

but unfortunately environmental crimes related

to deforestation are almost inconsequential.

Less than five percent of the fines are paid

and the one that get paid are not big enough to discourage farmers

from continuing with these criminal practices.

95% of the environmental fines that are levied in Brazil

are contested in court and more often than not,

even egregious deforesters

or people who displace indigenous people,

which is illegal, get off scot-free.

It's the people who are on the ground in countries like Brazil,

they want to make a living and they want to be able to feed their family.

I am certain that given the option they would rather do that

without having to destroy the rainforest,

but if the only option that these companies

are giving them is to earn their living

through this kind of destruction,

they're going to keep doing it.

They don't have a lot of choices,

and I think that maybe they could be providing

the people in Brazil with a better option

than destroying the land that they live in in order to eat.

One way that farmers found to go around the system

is through something called cattle laundering,

which is similar to money laundering.

The cattle are born in an area

responsible for deforestation,

then they're moved to a sustainable farm

where they get branded, fattened,

and sent to a certified slaughterhouse.

From there, they're sold as sustainable eco-friendly meat.

It's almost impossible to be certain

that your meat is not a result of deforestation.

This method of cattle laundering

has become common place in the market.

It's really unlikely that anybody knows

where the meat that they're eating comes from,

uh, particularly if it's ground meat. If it's ground meat,

it's coming from all different kinds of sources,

often just from one company, but they're sourcing different parts of the meat

from different companies, from different countries,

and, uh, mixing it all together

to get the content they're looking for.

Brazil is also the home

to great environmental and social initiatives.

It has the largest Meatless Mondays campaign in the world,

and recently the city of Sao Paolo

implemented Meatless Mondays

in all public schools in the region.

When it comes to the Amazon forest fires,

one indirect victim is rarely mentioned.

Every year over 50 million farm animals are raised

and killed for meat production in Brazil alone.

A fact that not only results in deforestation,

water pollution, and emission of greenhouse gases,

but also results in the loss of millions of animals' lives.

It's not only the Amazon forest that's burning.

Australia, California, Indonesia, Russia, Congo,

and several other parts of the world

are experiencing the most destructive

and devastating fires in decades.

Many of these fires are exacerbated by global warming.

The Amazon fires in particular

are part of a complex problem involving politics,

big business, and prolific corruption.

The political landscape is complicated.

The agro industry is very powerful,

and challenging these dominant forces

can be dangerous and difficult.

There is certainly a great deal of work to be done,

and there are many brave people fighting in the trenches

to change these systems.

But fortunately for you and I,

we have the power to create positive change

for the Amazon forest.

Each of us as individuals

is empowered to protect the Amazon,

and that power lies at the end of our knives and forks,

because we can make choices

when it comes to the food we eat.

By reducing or eliminating

the consumption of meat in our diets,

not only are we helping to prevent climate change,

but we are also protecting the Amazon forest

for present and future generations to come.

It's a frightening time, frankly, uh,

but I think that people can change and when change happens,

it generally happens pretty quickly,

and I think we're reaching a turning point,

and we're really hoping, and we're banking on the fact

that now that things have gotten to this point,

people are going to change their behaviors

and we're going to be able to turn things around.

There's this interesting fallacy in philosophy,

it's called "the is-ought fallacy,"

and what it basically means is to justify something

that you're doing because it's been done is wrong, and we can see that very easily.

Like, so, on one hand, people look at animal agriculture,

and they say, "Well, people have always eaten meat."

And I would say, "Yeah, but,

like, women used to not be allowed to vote."

We can very clearly see how logically, ethically that's completely wrong.

We used to be able to smoke on airplanes.

We keep making progress and progress involves

rejecting a past that we now deem to be unethical and wrong,

and the next thing we have to do

is reject the use of animals for food.

For the animals, for us,

and for this only home that we have.

In our clinic, when people learn to change their diets,

they're replacing the meat with healthier foods,

their health rebounds.

It's amazing to see.

Their lives are changed.

The earth is the same way,

that when we change our eating habits,

globally, the environment can rebound,

the forests can regrow.

We don't have to wait, we can do that now.

I say let's put it to work.

Subtitles by explosiveskull