Strongmen like Trump would destroy the planet out of pure spite – and Brazil shows we’re all in peril | George Monbiot

A strongman is a leader who concentrates authority, attacks restraints, and uses fear or revenge against opponents. The article connects this style of politics with environmental destruction because ecosystems become targets in a wider struggle against people who care about them. Nature is not treated as a shared foundation, but as property to seize or a symbol of the enemy.

The article presents Donald Trump as attacking public-land protections, national parks, forests, and the Endangered Species Act. It argues that these actions are not driven only by ranchers, loggers, miners, or frackers. Destroying habitats can also hurt Indigenous people, scientists, regulators, and environmental campaigners. Extinction leaves a permanent mark, which the article associates with a dictator’s desire to demonstrate power.

This makes environmental policy part of political retaliation. The article describes Brazil’s far right as embracing “beef, Bible and bullets,” including resource seizure and violence against resisters. If such politics continues, destruction can spread across several ecosystems, even when the damage undermines the systems everyone depends on.

Jair Bolsonaro was Brazil’s president before the period discussed, and the article calls him a jailed coup-plotter. Flávio Bolsonaro is presented as his political and physical likeness. In the article’s account, the Bolsonaro movement made ecological destruction part of a broader far-right programme, rather than treating it as an accidental cost of development.

During Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency, the deforestation rate rose by 59% over four years. Attacks on Indigenous people and other forest defenders increased, while illegal ranchers, loggers, and goldminers invaded forest areas. The article says crude extractivism became policy, regardless of its costs or its ability to hold back progress. It describes the movement’s ideology as “beef, Bible and bullets.”

Flávio won Brazil’s first round on 4 October and was described as likely to become president. The article warns that a second-round victory could accelerate destruction in the Amazon, Atlantic forest, Pantanal, Pampa, and Cerrado. It therefore presents the movement as a political force with national environmental consequences.

Brazil’s environmental record changed sharply between the two political periods described. During Jair Bolsonaro’s four years as president, the deforestation rate rose by 59%. The article presents this increase as part of a policy that encouraged crude extractivism and tolerated attacks on forest defenders, alongside invasions by illegal ranchers, loggers, and goldminers.

The contrasting figures are striking. In the previous four years, Brazilian government policy had reduced the deforestation rate by 71%. The area of Brazilian Amazon forest cleared each year was also one-sixth of its level when records began in 1988. These figures show how quickly policy can alter the direction of forest loss, although they measure different comparisons and periods.

The article attributes the reduction largely to Brazil and says that, if Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva were re-elected, Brazil could reach zero deforestation by 2030. It also warns that a Bolsonaro victory could reverse progress and threaten forests, wetlands, grasslands, and savannah habitats beyond the Amazon.

The article names five major Brazilian ecological regions at risk from an expanded extractive drive. They are the Amazon forest, the Atlantic forest in the south, the Pantanal wetlands, the Pampa grasslands, and the Cerrado savannah habitats. The warning matters because the danger is not confined to one forest or one industry.

In the Amazon, cattle ranching is identified as the primary driver of deforestation. Illegal ranchers, loggers, and goldminers invade forest areas, while violence targets Indigenous people and other defenders. The article describes this combination as “beef, Bible and bullets,” linking cattle expansion, ultra-conservative politics, and force against resistance. Logging and mining add further pressure.

The article presents a possible Bolsonaro victory as a threat to all these ecosystems. It says government policy could catalyse a “gleeful rampage” by supporters. If extraction expands across forests, wetlands, grasslands, and savannahs, the damage would affect many landscapes and communities, not merely one region.

When forests and other ecosystems are destroyed, wildlife loses the habitats it needs, and species can move toward extinction. People also suffer. The article specifically identifies Indigenous people, other people of colour, regulators, scientists, and environmental defenders as frequent targets or victims of environmental destruction. It describes ecosystems as life-support systems, so their loss threatens more than scenery.

The article gives concrete examples. Habitat destruction threatens the monarch butterfly and many other endangered species. In Brazil, deforestation was accompanied by attacks on Indigenous people and forest defenders, plus invasions by illegal ranchers, loggers, and goldminers. More broadly, established ecological knowledge shows that forest loss can release stored carbon, disrupt rainfall, increase erosion, and damage water quality.

The consequences can reinforce one another. Lost habitats reduce biodiversity, while damaged soils and altered water flows undermine farming and communities. The article’s central warning is that destruction is difficult to justify as progress: it can weaken the very systems that support life, while permanently eliminating species and places.

These forces form a connected chain. Cattle ranching creates pressure to clear forest, while illegal ranchers, loggers, and goldminers exploit areas where control is weak. Indigenous people and other forest defenders resist invasions and the seizure of resources. Their land rights therefore collide directly with extractive interests and political protection.

The article identifies cattle ranching as the Amazon’s primary deforestation driver. It also reports that, under Jair Bolsonaro, attacks on Indigenous people and forest defenders increased, while illegal ranchers, loggers, and goldminers invaded forest areas. Environmental enforcement includes regulators and public policy. When enforcement is weakened or ignored, illegal activity can expand; when policy supports protection, deforestation can fall.

The contrast with the previous four years illustrates this mechanism. Brazilian government policy helped reduce the deforestation rate by 71%, while Bolsonaro’s four years saw it rise by 59%. The article therefore presents enforcement and political leadership as decisive: they can protect rights and forests, or enable extraction and violence.

Ecosystems are called life-support systems because living communities perform functions people and other species depend on. Forests provide habitats, store carbon, influence rainfall, protect soils, and help regulate water. Wetlands, grasslands, and savannahs also support distinctive species and communities. The article captures this dependence with the question of whether anyone wants to live on a dead planet.

The article’s examples show why limits matter. Clearing habitat threatens monarch butterflies and many endangered species. Destroying the Amazon and other regions also harms Indigenous people, forest defenders, and communities facing resource seizure. Established ecological knowledge adds that lost forests can increase carbon emissions, erosion, flooding, and water disruption. These effects can spread beyond the cleared site.

Recovery is not guaranteed. A forest may regrow differently, while extinct species cannot return naturally. Damaged soils, altered water flows, and fragmented habitats can block recovery. The article’s warning about wiping ecosystems off the map is therefore literal and political: short-term extraction can create permanent losses that later policy cannot fully repair.