Preserving the Amazon rainforest is an essential step in curbing global warming. The rainforest is deforested continuously to make room for cattle pastures and farmland, usually by the greenhouse gas emitting process of slash and burn, which is followed by greenhouse gas emitting practices such as cattle ranching and commercial monoculture farming, until the soil’s nutrients are used up and the farmer moves on. Rainforest deforestation accounts for 70% of Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The deforestation is occurring in one part because cattle ranching and soybean farming in the rainforest are highly profitable businesses. In Mato Grosso, one of the Brazilian states at the center of this problem, cattle ranching in the rainforest turned the state from a poverty and malaria stricken region into a vibrant economy.

There are many (oversimplified) stories like this at the convergence of global warming and economics. In many cases the people know they are using their resources unsustainably and contributing to climate change, and want to do something about it, but there are no economic incentives for them to change. This is why fish are still caught along the coast of the U.S. and shipped to China to be filleted, then shipped back to the U.S. to be eaten. It’s why Americans take multiple 1-3 mile trips in their vehicles each day, and why they choose single occupancy driving over public transportation or car pooling. It’s why the poorest among us contribute so much to the problem by cooking with open pit fires. And it’s why the Amazon rainforest is being desertified to make room for cattle ranches and agriculture.

One way to take on this problem is by creating economic incentives to conserve. We do this in the U.S. already by paying farmers not to plow. Environmental groups in Brazil, Australia, and Norway are looking in to or testing the possibility of paying farmers and ranchers by the acre to not cut down more rainforest. Norway has granted Brazil a billion dollar Amazon Fund to help communities with forest conservation. In the example described in this article, an environmental group has offered a soybean farmer $12/acre/year for his remaining rainforest land, while the cleared land would be worth approx. $1300/acre.

Despite the small price, the rancher is considering the offer, and that’s where the magic happens. While the cleared land is worth more to the farmer where he’s offered NGO money or not, the small stipend could be enough to change his practices.

Handouts from NGOs and Norwegian grants are only one of many useful avenues to create incentives for Amazon conservation. Mato Grosso has an environmental organization of ranchers and farmers, called Alianca da Terra, which has satellites and surveyors keep track of their existing forestland to certify that they don’t clear it. The organization is currently in talks with McDonald’s to have the influential chain buy only from producers who are certified and whose land is surveyed and tracked.

A contract with McDonald’s would be insanely lucrative, creating incentive for all Amazon farmers to become certified to remain competitive. It’s great to see multinationals using their buying power to switch to green or environmentally friendly practices. As this continues, we’ll see those practices thrive throughout the world, and hopefully we can turn this ship around.