deforestaion
...t. SOURCES O and P are linked together which make them both powerfully reliable, also both are from the information conventions, UN 1998. The American government with other countries signed this contract to reduce carbon dioxide, possibly by cutting down deforestation. This goes against the second part of the hypothesis 'that only the government can solve' deforestation, as not only the Brazilian government could stop deforestation, but so could other powerful authorities. SOURCE F shows that within a year from August 1999, deforestation increased by 15%, but we don't know that this piece of information is reliable. Brazil's national institute for space research monitors deforestation via satellite. This showed the total deforested area equalled to 19,836 square kilometres (4 million soccer fields), compared to 17,259 square kilometres from August 1998 to August 1999; (a 13% increase). This clearly shows two sets of data-reliable. The space satellite photos are very reliable, as satellite photos cannot lie. SOURCE F also shows that scientific studies have taken place and showed that the 'Amazon soil is not suitable for agriculture and cattle-ranching. The biological richness of the region lives only in the standing forest.' This statement has come from the scientific studies, which is reliable because science can't lie, although we don't know which scientific study it came from. If there are no plants in the rainforest, the soil will turn into muddy sliders because it rains every half an hour and this'll make a large desert. The title of this source is 'Greenpeace demands zero deforestation by 2010.' Greenpeace is a charity; therefore they don't have any real power. They can say statements, but they can't demand it. The UN has the power to demand it. Although SOURCE F was a...