IntroductionThe Amazon rainforest is often at the center of discussions on global warming, particularly those on deforestation and its impact on a global scale. With an area of ​​2.1 million square kilometers, the Amazon is the largest tropical forest in the world; it is often called the “lung of the planet”. It plays a crucial role in controlling carbon dioxide emissions. This project is supported by David Attenborough, Greta Thunberg and 1.5 million children who went on strike in schools to raise awareness about climate change. More and more people now recognize the problem it poses to current and future generations. Global efforts are needed now to reduce the effects, but without a common approach, changes are unlikely to succeed. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay Views on the impact of global warming differ. Some believe that financial issues, which can lead to large-scale losses in some sectors, take priority. Such as the cost that governments can be expected to incur, in order to provide investment to finance alternative means of heating, travel and food production. President Trump has publicly expressed his view, believing that there is no strong, credible evidence to support it. US climate scientists who advocate for climate change say President Trump's views are 'hopelessly misinformed'. Conversely, 99.99% of authors in peer-reviewed journals on climate change and the National Academy of Sciences support the assertion that global warming is man-made and caused by all activities human. In 2015, the Paris Agreement became a “historic” event, the first single agreement bringing together nearly 200 countries on the issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Dr Bill Hare, physicist and lead author of an intergovernmental panel on climate change, says: "This is a victory for the most vulnerable countries, small islands, least developed countries and those that have the most to lose, who came to Paris. and said they didn’t want sympathy, they wanted action.” There is, however, opposition to the Paris Agreement from President Trump; he insists it is a costly and ineffective solution to the so-called climate crisis, which he says negatively affects America's economic future and capacity for self-governance. There is considerable data to refute this claim. The evidence produced to ensure the passage of this bill is considerable, and the fact that the majority of world leaders signed the agreement suggests that the research undertaken is accurate and comprehensive. Lauren Bennett explores the important ecological role forests play in climate reduction. change; such as providing shelter for many species of plants and animals; providing food, medicine and livelihoods to people around the world; to the intrinsic values ​​of forests. It emphasizes that these essential ecological necessities are irreplaceable and endangered and provides evidence to support the argument that deforestation has a significant impact on the world we live in and that the way we use our natural resources only reinforces this impact. Lauren Bennett identifies the main factors that contribute to deforestation, eachwith its own causes and negative environmental impacts. She explores each of these elements in detail, emphasizing that agriculture, cattle ranching and logging are major contributors. She says that with increasing deforestation, many animal habitats are being lost, with fires pushing animals out of the forest, decreasing biodiversity and increasing the number of endangered or extinct animal species. This seems to be a rational argument supported by different wildlife groups such as the WWF and esteemed opinions such as Jeffrey Hays and Colin Stief. The article is found to be strong and credible due to the author's position as a researcher at the Climate Institute. She is able to make a compelling argument that one can relate to, referencing well-known companies such as MacDonald's, Burger King, and Pizza Hut that have deforested the rainforest in order to raise livestock for their hamburgers. Although some of these companies have promised to be more environmentally conscious, others have no plans to abandon this harmful and unnecessary form of animal agriculture. She concludes by saying that if we continue on this path, up to 55% of the Amazon rainforest could disappear by 2030. She also says that the next generation, concerned about the environment and ready to drive change, may be -be the final key to unlocking preservation. and the protection of forests and the protection of the Amazon, ending on a positive note for the future. The second source “Deforestation Explained” explores the growing concern about global actions on deforestation and supports the claim that there is a correlation between our behaviors and deforestation, causing the situation to get worse. Christina Nunez, writing for National Geographic, explores this topic, she has covered energy issues for the website, so she has a very credible opinion on this topic and writes knowledgeably about it. She says forests still cover about 30 percent of the world's land area. area, but they are disappearing at an alarming rate. Between 1990 and 2016, the planet lost 1.3 million square kilometers of forest. Ever since humans started cutting down forests, “Nature”. About 17 percent of the Amazon rainforest has been destroyed over the past 50 years, and losses have recently increased. There is consensus among all selected sources that agriculture, livestock grazing, mining and drilling combined account for more than half of all deforestation. Nunez counters this by pointing out that there is also some unintentional deforestation. Some are caused by a combination of human and natural factors like wildfires and overgrazing. In this statement, she demonstrates her awareness of the broader issues that contribute to the same outcome. Nunez says we need trees for a variety of reasons, because they absorb not only the carbon dioxide we exhale, but also the greenhouse gases that trap heat. human activities emit. It is these human activities that must be identified and reduced. It suggests that tropical forest cover alone can provide 23 percent of the climate change mitigation needed over the next decade to meet the targets set in the Paris Agreement in 2015. Therefore, there is a need for reduction marked felling of trees, a reduction in -agriculture to provide meat that is exported to the west, and a reduction in the number of trees cut down due to increasing urban sprawl as land is developed for housing. The evidence produced inThis article supports the claim made by the author of my first source that by modifying human behavior it is possible to mitigate climate change. Nunez refers to data to support his reasoning. The third source focuses on behaviors closer to home and is a series of Panorama programs produced by the BBC in October and November 2019. The first program "Climate change, what can we do?" focuses on the changes an England-based family of four can make to reduce their carbon footprint. The researcher and editor of this program was Professor Mike Berners-Lee, a carbon footprint researcher and writer at Lancaster University in England. The report highlights the UK government's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050. It also reinforced the argument that there is a lot of confusing information in the public space. By focusing on the daily activities of a typical family; The program highlights that every activity has a carbon footprint, with the average footprint for a family of four being 52 tonnes. He points out that meat and dairy consumption has a significantly high footprint due to the methane produced by livestock, the distances from which these products are imported if not locally sourced; the impact of home heating on the increased use of fossil fuels and the use of cars running on petrol and diesel. Although the program explores the considerable amount of information available, it manages to demonstrate how subtle changes can impact global warming and suggests that if every household changed their lifestyle there could be considerable improvement in change climatic. It also takes into account the positive effects of mandatory environmental food labeling, lower impact food production, increased incentives for farmers, increased infrastructure to support the use of electric cars and the need to meet the biggest challenge of sustainable housing. The program provided a consistent message, using easily understandable comparisons while providing actionable solutions. The second program “Meat – a threat to our planet” was presented by Liz Bonnin (biochemist and ecologist). He was referring to broader issues and the impact the meat industry reduces greenhouse gases. This show's reporting was more shocking in its message, highlighting that meat production is one of the biggest threats to the environment. The presenter visited different areas where meat production and livestock farming are raised and showed how the practices used by farmers not only destroyed wildlife and the natural environment but also resulted in the production of more gas to greenhouse effect than all modes of transport combined in the world. world. He reported large-scale destruction of the Amazon rainforest, with 20 percent of land lost to grazing livestock, which could result in an area three times the size of the UK deforested. The message of this documentary was clear: “the cattle were literally devouring the forest”. More than 200 million cattle are estimated to graze on now-cleared agricultural land, undoubtedly boosting Brazil's economy but also contributing to climate change across the world. The visual images presented in this documentary provided a clear and relevant message. The apparent damage caused by deforestation to flora and fauna has been considerable.,.