The 2022 Brazil election is going to define the future of the Amazon rainforest, home to more than half the fauna and flora species of this world. Its lush greenery is also the ancestral home for one million Indian tribes, an indigenous community that stretches across South America. As of now, Brazil’s current president, Jair Bolsonaro has been overtaken by former president, Lula da Silva, in the first round on 2nd October. The final second runoff will take place on 30th October.

The election is a tale of two contrasting Amazon legacies in the October elections. Jair Messais Bolsonaro’s presidency has come under fire for his neoconservative ideology endangering both human rights and the Amazon forest. His far-right policies are meant to integrate the country into a neoliberal economic system.  However the associated illegal mining practices are plundering not only the Amazon rainforest but also targeting indigenous communities such as Yanomami, Mundruku, and Kayapó.

On the other hand, the leading opposition figure, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the former Brazilian President along with the former environmental minister, Marina Silva invested in creating inclusive environmental policies. Their policies strengthen the  forest code to preserve the forest from the agricultural industry. His presidency was responsible for halting massive deforestation between 2003 and 2010. However, his presidency is also responsible for constructing the controversial dam, Belo Monte mega-dam on the Amazonian Xingu River. One can’t neatly categorize him as an Amazon protector or Amazon destroyer. The article conducts a very simple quantitative analysis to map the voting behavior in Brazilian states. The principal component analysis  measures the political spectrum in the Brazilian region. It provides a rather digestible analysis to map out voter preference based on the deforestation rate in the region.

Analysis

Climate change is no longer an environmental issue. It is a political issue as poor communities are being exposed to extreme weather events. Climate change has become a cause of concern for many across the political spectrum, but left-leaning individuals express more concerns about the anthropogenic nature of climate change. Deforestation is a key contributor to climate change where the loss of forests has destabilized the global ecosystem. Deforestation is a multi-dimensional issue that maps the country’s future.

Every rational voter experiencing the impact of deforestation will base his or her decision on who is going to be more “environmentally friendly”. The deforestation rate can’t be affixed as a measure of environmental friendliness. Instead, it can be a debatably measured political spectrum.  Deforestation can be viewed as a trade-off between economic well-being and survival. The deforestation rate (%) was defined in terms of primary forest loss (%) in each of 26 states and a federal district.

Acre has experienced the highest deforestation. On the other hand, Rio Grande Do Norte and Do Sul have experienced the lowest deforestation. Acre being part of legal Amazon is vulnerable to high-scale cattle-ranching and agricultural economy. The REDD initiative has failed to address the socio-economic disparities where environmental concerns are overridden by economic concerns and promises. On the other hand, the low deforestation rate in these two regions  belongs to Caatinga and Cerrado biome.  These two dry biomes are typically underrepresented in conservation policies.  On the other hand, the analysis rationally assumes that the fate of Amazon lies in the hands of  the two major political candidates mentioned above.

It can be clearly observed that the Lula is widely popular in Piaui. On the other hand, Bolsonaro is popular in Roraima. One can state that Piaui being an impoverished northeastern Brazil region is more likely to support Lula’s left-wing politics. On the other hand, Roraima houses a major conservative population.  Thus they are more likely to support Bolsonaro’s ultra-right-wing politics. The question lies in how are these regions positioned in terms of basing their votes on deforestation rates. A principal component analysis was conducted to map voters’ preference for a certain political candidate based on deforestation rates. Before, one proceeds toward understanding the principal component analysis, it is important to understand the inter-correlation between each variable.

There is a negative correlation between deforestation rate and Lula da Silva voting. On the other hand, there is a positive correlation between the deforestation rate and Bolsonaro voting. The negative correlation between Lula da Silva and Bolsonaro shows that both are clear competitors thus the Brazilian electoral geography is sectarian. The rest are simple correlations to themselves and not the main analytical focus.  It focusses mainly on the deforestation rate and two political candidates’ regional voting behavior.

The prominent regions with the highest deforestation rates (Acre, Roraima, and Amazonas) on the left are more likely to vote for Jair Bolsonaro. The other regions with low deforestation rates may vote for Jair Bolsonaro because these regions such as Sao Paulo belonged  to developed Southern Brazil. Current right-wing politics have developed a strong political alliance with rural elites in the legal Amazon regions. It has allowed wildcat mining  and rich rural farmers are encouraged to flout conservation principles.

These regions tend to prioritize economic well-being over environmental welfare. On the other hand, the prominent regions with the lowest deforestation rates on the right (Rio Grande Do Norte and Sul and Pariba) are more likely to vote for Lula da Silva. The environmental concerns, especially in the northeastern region, are due to the lack of socially-inclusive environmental policies and economic development. The former president was thought of as an egalitarian leader. His reputation encourages the impoverished population to vote for the former president over the current president to secure their future. It is clearl that deforested regions are varying in nature hence, they are not equally distributed among the two candidates. In the case of Lula da Silva, Para (a highly deforested region) shows that there are exceptions to such cases. One can attribute its left-leaning voting behavior to the elected left-wing governor in its capital city,  Belém. The current governor, Edmilson Rodrigues has established credibility in the region by implementing effective urban policies to empower the marginalized communities in a neoliberal economic system.

Limitation

The voting distribution in each state for each political candidate is not equally distributed due to various social disparities. These social disparities can skew voter distribution. Deforestation rates are also highly dependent on geographical size and abiotic factors in a region. Deforestation rates may not be the priority concern for many populations in Brazil. The uneven cross-cutting suggests that deforestation opinions are highly unstable and may not be an accurate measure of the region’s attitude. However, it does give a rough idea of how deforestation rates can define the political spectrum in region.

Conclusion

Regions with high deforestation rates tend to vote for Bolsonaro. On the other hand, regions with low deforestation rates tend to vote for Lula da Silva. Though they can’t be neatly divided, Bolsonaro’s regions are beneficiaries of the neoliberal system while Lula da Silva’s regions are often the victims of the neoliberal system. Deforestation rates may not be a prime concern given that the uneven cross-cuttings create a very highly unstable opinion. Every eco-conscious person is anticipating the final results on the 30th of October. The fate of the Amazon rainforest is not in our hands, it is in the hands of Brazilian citizens.