[vfc1]

Cattle ranching in the Amazon is the main responsible for deforestation, responsible for about 65% of the land deforested.

So a simple economic solution to the problem is to stop buying so much beef and the deforestation would reduce drastically. Why would they continue to chop the forest down if they have no economic incentive to do so?

The excessive consumption of animal products in the west is the main reason why this "3 football fields" a minute thing is going on.

[maehwasu]

What incentive mechanism are you proposing? (Real question, not rhetorical)

Generally, when people ask for an economic solution, they’re looking for a proposal to change behavioral incentives, rather than proclamation of the desirability of someone’s pet cause (as noble as it may be).

[vfc1]

The incentive to keep deforesting is to provide cheap beef meat mostly for western countries which can pay the most.

By reducing the amount of meat consumed in the west, there would be no reason to keep chopping down the forest, it's expensive.

In the west we would need a meat tax like it has been proposed in several countries, this alone we would reduce demand for beef and reduce the rate that the forest is getting chopped.

Only if it hurts on people's pockets will anything change, if it doesn't and it goes down for long enough, and the climate keep changing like it has it's going to end up as it as always ended when multiple groups of people are competing for resources: war.

[youareostriches]

High tariffs on Brazilian beef are an idea.