> Brazil is meeting the demand for soybean by cutting the rainforest and selling it to USA.
The problem isn't demand for soybeans. If there was less demand for soybeans then they would be producing palm kernel oil or something else. And there is nothing wrong with soybeans grown on land that wasn't previously rainforest. What is necessary is a law against cutting down the rainforest which is actually enforced. The result of that law may be that the US will have to get its soybeans from somewhere else or will have to buy something else instead of soybeans, but that is a consequence not a cause.
> So yes, USA needs to stop producing that much of livestock.
It probably doesn't. Agricultural practices are more advanced in the US and the land is already converted. If livestock is to be raised anywhere it is more sensible to do it there than most other places.
The problem isn't demand for soybeans. If there was less demand for soybeans then they would be producing palm kernel oil or something else. And there is nothing wrong with soybeans grown on land that wasn't previously rainforest. What is necessary is a law against cutting down the rainforest which is actually enforced. The result of that law may be that the US will have to get its soybeans from somewhere else or will have to buy something else instead of soybeans, but that is a consequence not a cause.
> So yes, USA needs to stop producing that much of livestock.
It probably doesn't. Agricultural practices are more advanced in the US and the land is already converted. If livestock is to be raised anywhere it is more sensible to do it there than most other places.
Not all countries are the same.