A war would probably just damage the forest anyway.
Also, the native people that live in the Amazon are at threat too, but nobody is listening to them. They do not have the resources to standup to the Brazilian government that continues to ignore them and continues to give away their land to corporate interests.
That would certainly be cheaper than a war, which would probably just cause a large amount of damage to the forest anyway.
Or pay to keep it. I don't care, but this neo-colonialism infuriates L. Americans who witness a steady stream of Western countries come in and destroy their environment
It would be far cheaper for everyone to just write a regular check to Brazil that has a big enough number on it that they can't refuse. If the cost is split between several countries, it will probably be kind of negligible in the grand scheme of things, Brazil may be better off (well, if corruption doesn't blow up all the money), and the Amazon won't be destroyed as quickly.
The only catch is ensuring destruction doesn't keep going & that Brazil keeps its end of the bargain, which would require oversight, and that's easier said than done.
Brazil is suffering severely and they need carrots right now, not sticks.
Invading a foreign country to prevent them from fucking up the planet is definitely a new thing in the international diplomacy book, but it will happen more and more.
There are likely billions, if not trillions, of dollars worth of undiscovered pharmaceuticals in the Amazon still today.
Not that economic utility is needed to justify conservation, but nothing more than wood could not be further from the truth.
Let me guess: the US with a Democratic president + some meaningless European countries. All waving the flag of self-righteousness while they sign exploitative contracts to “rebuild” the country they bombed.