As world leaders prepare to gather in Belém, Brazil, for the COP30 climate summit, the Brazilian government is bulldozing tens of thousands of acres of protected Amazon rainforest to make way for a massive four lane highway. The road, spanning over 13 kilometers (8 miles) through once-pristine wilderness, is being justified as a “sustainable” solution to ease congestion. In reality, it is an environmental disaster—one that starkly contradicts the very purpose of the climate conference it is meant to serve. The destruction is overwhelming.

Towering trees, home to countless species, have been reduced to piles of logs. Wetlands are being drained and covered by concrete. What was once a thriving ecosystem, crucial to absorbing global carbon emissions and maintaining biodiversity, is now under assault by those very men who should have taken more care of it. Many postcolonial eco-critics have repeatedly argued that constructing a binary between nature and humans misleads environmental activism. When nature is destroyed, it is not only nature that suffers but also the people who live in harmony with it and depend on it for their survival. The highway construction project through the Amazon rainforest is similarly causing immense harm to the people of that region.

Newspaper reports have revealed that for locals like Claudio Verequete, who lived off the land harvesting açaí berries, the consequences are devastating. His livelihood has been wiped out, and he has received no compensation for the loss. Worse still, the highway won’t even serve his community–it is separated from the region they live in, and designed for trucks and foreign visitors, not for those who have lived there for generations. If someone in his village falls ill, they will still have no direct route to medical care. “One day, someone might come with money and say, ‘We need this land for a gas station or a warehouse.’ What will happen to us then?” he asks.

The direct impact of this highway on the ecosystem of the region will be equally alarming. Scientists warn that the highway will fragment fragile ecosystems, cutting off wildlife corridors and reducing already shrinking habitats. Professor Silvia Sardinha, a wildlife veterinarian, sees the consequences firsthand: her team rehabilitates animals injured by human encroachment, many of whom may now have nowhere left to go. “The moment deforestation begins, loss follows,” she says. “We’re losing a natural habitat where we release rehabilitated animals. Land animals won’t be able to cross freely anymore, which will shrink their breeding and living spaces.”

Despite the clear environmental devastation, Brazilian officials continue to push COP30 as an opportunity to showcase their commitment to conservation of the environment. In fact, addressing the issue of the damage that would be done to Amazon, President Lula and his environment minister have said that this is “a COP in the Amazon, not just about the Amazon.” Could anything be funnier than a statement like this coming out from the high-profile officials of a country that is organising a global climate summit? In fact, their actions match what they have said. Instead of preserving the rainforest, they are fast tracking massive infrastructure projects—luxury hotels, an expanded port, an $81 million airport upgrade, and a sprawling new city park all in the name of ‘progress.’

This so-called ‘progress’ has also been questioned by the locals. Newspaper reports reveal that while some business owners of Belém welcome the economic boost, others see the hypocrisy. João Alexandre Trindade da Silva, a herbal medicine vendor, acknowledges that development is inevitable but questions whether COP30 will result in any real climate actions. “We just hope the discussions lead to something,” he says. “If decisions are implemented, maybe future generations will breathe cleaner air.” That hope, however, seems increasingly naive. As thousands of world leaders and business elites prepare to fly in—each contributing to the event’s massive carbon footprint—it becomes clear that COP30 is less about saving the planet and more about political spectacle. How can a climate conference justify deforestation? How can leaders preach sustainability while enabling them? COP30 should have been a symbol of global commitment to the Amazon.

Instead, it is exposing the deep contradictions of modern climate politics—where grand promises are made, but, in the end, profit and convenience always come first. In this context, it should be pointed out that while discussing present-day hypocrisy about environmental concerns, it is not enough to talk only about global political summits. We must also question the effectiveness of the various seminars and conferences held worldwide on environmental issues. Does the money and effort invested in these events yield meaningful results? Often, in air-conditioned rooms, theoretical discussions drain all the energy of the scholars and researchers. Most of the time, there is a significant gap between discussion and activism, preaching and practising.

That being said, it cannot be denied that environmental conferences and seminars do help raise awareness among a certain section of people. However, it is often observed that these very events use materials—such as plastic water glasses and thermocol plates—that are highly detrimental to the environment. I have personally attended many such seminars/conferences and witnessed these contradictions firsthand. In a country like ours, money, however, is often a big problem in using environment-friendly cutlery in events like academic conferences and seminars. Having said this, one must admit that the COP30 political summit has, in fact, highlighted the hypocrisy about the environment, which prevails not only in politics but also in academia.

For years, Indian colleges have had a subject called Environmental Science, yet it remains largely insignificant within the examination system. In most cases, students do not even attend the classes on Environmental Science. For a long time, I have taught a course titled Ecology and Literature in my department. Even there, it is nearly impossible to take students beyond the classroom to give them first hand exposure to environmental good and bad. Most universities in India are working under financial constraints—field excursions are becoming increasingly difficult to organise. Another point, in this regard, needs to be noted.

The National Education Policy (NEP) has been implemented, yet Botany students in an Indian college or university rarely show interest in reading Rabindranath Tagore’s short story “Bolai” (that shows a young-adult’s unfeigned love for trees) just as students of Bengali or English literature remain unaware of the diverse species of trees on their own campus. Such interdisciplinary exchanges between departments can bridge the gap between preaching and practising, so far as a course related to the environment is concerned. On September 23, 2019, sixteen-year-old Greta Thunberg stood before world leaders at the United Nations’ Climate Action Summit, and pointing out what had been wrong with them, repeatedly asked a simple and yet poignant question, how dare you? Sometimes, we, too, need to ask ourselves the same question—how dare we?

-The Statesman (India)/ANN