Elizabeth Rosenthal reported in the New York Times of a recent estimate from the Smithsonian Institution research in Central America suggesting that “for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster. . . The new forests, the scientists argue, could blunt the effects of rain forest destruction by absorbing carbon dioxide, the leading heat-trapping gas linked to global warming, one crucial role that rain forests play. They could also, to a lesser extent, provide habitat for endangered species.” The next sentence, however, has a drearily predictable beginning: “The idea has stirred outrage among environmentalists,” not because it might be untrue, but because it might blunt support for “vigorous efforts to protect native rain forests.”
Never let good news get in the way of one's agenda!
4 comments:
Interesting. I never knew of that statistic about 50:1 growth vs distruction.
I understand their warnings. The report may give, even probably will give the notion to many that the rain forests will be replaced in any case so it doesn't matter what is done to the existing ones. They are right, such reports can encourage complacency when continued attention is warranted.
Besides, some species can be lost in regional deforestation and being rendered extinct, be unable to come back!
The extinction of species has been the rule rather than the exception over natural history, even without he existence of homo sapiens. My point is not that I am encouraging deforestation or that I don't care. It is that environmentalists generally are generally an unhappy lot, even when good news is reported.
OK, that makes sense. But such is the lot, I'm afraid, of most any engaged activist.
Post a Comment