How much economic benefit would those resources offer if consumed? In the case of forests, is the land covered by them fit for pasture or crops? Is that an apt comparison with the Amazon?
Also, how much does North America need the money they'd get out of consuming those resources?
> Similarly, Europe has many resources of its own
Is that so? How much of Europe is covered by native forests? In Brazil it's roughly 50% of the country. And that's native rain forest, not artificial reforestation.
Is Europe willing to relocate people out of territories they've occupied for generations to restore the original forests?
> most of the consumption of natural resources in these countries predated our modern understanding of environment
Yes, but the fact is Western countries are wealthy and the resources they consumed throughout their history surely played a part in the wealth they've accumulated. Why shouldn't Brazil have that chance?
To clarify, I do not think it's reasonable to cut down the forest - but it's very easy and convenient for European countries to point fingers when they've gotten rich off their own resources and other countries' resources via colonialism.
> If the US demanded a check from Brazil in order to halt the creation of some oil pipeline or coal mine, they would rightly be laughed out of the room
If the US were a poor country and the oil pipeline would represent a big economic gain for them, I honestly don't think that would be unreasonable. You can't expect poor countries to sit on their hands if it's a game changing opportunity.
> Maybe the analog here is a border adjustment for Brazil and other countries that aren't managing their environment to some accepted standard, so that other Western countries aren't contributing to Brazilian deforestation
I would fully support that. I don't think we'll see any improvements to the situation until other countries maneuver to make deforestation an economic issue.