Entire Rainforests Set to Disappear

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0705-06.htm

Published on Saturday, July 5, 2003 by the lndependent/UK

Entire Rainforests Set to Disappear in Next Decade
by Marie Woolf

More than 23 million acres of the world's forests - enough to cover the whole of Scotland - are disappearing each year because of logging, mining and land clearance for agriculture.

The scale of deforestation is so great that some countries, such as Indonesia, could lose entire rainforests in the next 10 years. The appetite for wood for furniture, floors and building in Europe and North America is shrinking the world's forests at a rate of 2.4 per cent every 10 years, official figures show.

Hilary Benn, an International Development minister, who released the United Nations statistics, said that they did not take into account deforestation caused by "trade in illegal timber".

According to the UN figures showing the depletion of forests between 1990 and 2000, the worst-affected country was Haiti, which lost 5.7 per cent of its stock in that period. Saint Lucia's forestry was eroded by 4.9 per cent and El Salvador's by 4.6 per cent. Other big losers included Micronesia (4.5 per cent), Comoros (4.3 per cent) and Rwanda (3.9 per cent).

The habitats of the orang-utan, bonobo ape and lowland gorilla are under threat and the world's rarest creatures, including the Sumatran tiger and rhino, are being forced to retreat into Indonesia's ever- shrinking forests.

The figures follow the disclosure by The Independent of the alarming rate at which the Amazon rainforest is being destroyed. Logging of Brazil's rainforests has leapt by 40 per cent in the past year, with 25,500sq km felled in that time.

Andy Tait, the forests campaigner at Greenpeace, said: "The world bank estimates that the lowland rainforest of Sumatra and Kalimantan in Indonesia, which is the home of the orang-utan, has less than 10 years to go until it is completely logged out."

MPs called on the Government to put more pressure on international governments to use wood produced in sustainable logging programs.

Norman Baker, Environment spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said the Government must stop using mahogany and sapele wood in its public building projects.

"Deforestation is an almost irreversible process. You cannot grow a forest overnight. Excessive forest farming must be curbed. Otherwise the adage that 'forests proceed man, deserts follow him' will sadly ring true," he said.

© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

###

[Brandon]

I'm sure someone will show up and fire off a reply about how it's important not to stand in the way of "progress."

[Jeanette X]

Excuse me, I need to stand in a corner for a while and SCREAM AND SCREAM AND SCREAM!
Anyway, if you guys care about rainforests, and want to actually DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, go to these click-a-day sites:
http://www.therainforestsite.com
http://www.clicktheplanet.org/ (click on the road signs. Sometimes its down, so check back later if it is.)
http://www.ecosolidariedade.com.br/default_eng.asp
www.theecologyfund.com
http://rainforest.care2.com/
http://www.diewaldseite.de/ (click on the STOP button)
http://www.wildglobe.com
http://www.tree4life.com/ingles/ingles.htm
Let me know if they don't work.

[Big Papa Goat]

Rainforests aren't as important as me having a nice hardwood coffee table, and some nice coffee grown on what used to be a rainforest. Honestly, damn hippies thinking that the continuance of the worlds most diverse ecosystems is more important than me having all the useless shit I desire... bunch of communist bastards if you ask me!

[Zhukov]

Put your hand up if you think that the saving of the rainforests from corporations can only be achieved through corporate sponsorship.

[El Blanco]

The habitats of the orang-utan, bonobo ape and lowland gorilla are under threat

At least those damn dirty apes won't be taking over now.

[The One and Only...]

The only things I am worried about is:

a) Loss of oxygen in the atmosphere.

b) Loss of possible medical developments.

I could care less about the apes.

[Zero Signal]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

a) Loss of oxygen in the atmosphere.

90% of the planet's oxygen is produced by various algae in the seas. Razing the rainforests would not have the impact on oxygen that environmentalists would have you believe.

[Sethomas]

I want a rifle with a mahogany stock, so I can go ape hunting. Sumatra and Jamaica do produce the best coffee, though.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by Zero Signal

90% of the planet's oxygen is produced by various algae in the seas. Razing the rainforests would not have the impact on oxygen that environmentalists would have you believe.

I know that some environmentalists engage in alarmist tactics, but please don't let them discredit the entire cause. The rainforests are vital habitat for many species, contain renewable resources such as nutes which can help the economy of the countries they are in, and have a great deal of potential in terms of undiscovered medicinal plant uses.

Sumatra and Jamaica do produce the best coffee, though.

Are you familiar with the difference between shade-grown coffee and sun grown coffee? Its a rather interesting issue regarding the rainforest.

Put your hand up if you think that the saving of the rainforests from corporations can only be achieved through corporate sponsorship.

So do you object to the click-a-day sites on a matter of principle?

[Zero Signal]

I understand the other implications, Jeanette, but I was simply referring to the issue of oxygen. Rainforests have been an extremely value medical resource.

[kahljorn]

"90% of the planet's oxygen is produced by various algae in the seas. Razing the rainforests would not have the impact on oxygen that environmentalists would have you believe."

Speculation, especially since the rainforests have been being cut down so much the percentage would be thrown off. Irregardless, Ten percent is still alot.


As the oxygen count lowers things like certain types of cancer will raise.

[Jeanette X]

Irregardless isn't a word. :grammarnazi

[kahljorn]

ir·re·gard·less ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-gärdls)
adv. Nonstandard
Regardless.


irregardless

adv : in spite of everything; without regard to drawbacks; "he carried on regardless of the difficulties" [syn: regardless, irrespective, disregardless, no matter, disregarding]

Grammarnazi isn't a word.

"contain renewable resources such as nutes "

What are Nutes, anyway?

[Jeanette X]

Fuck. I should practice what I preach.

[executioneer]

doesn't that "nonstandard" mean that it's still improper usage? :/

-willie

[Zhukov]

So do you object to the click-a-day sites on a matter of principle?

Unfortunatley, some people think they can just click a site and be done with it; that's their enviro-saving for the day - it makes people feel better about themselves.


I still click the sites, but I think you realise that simply clicking a site is not going to stop the destruction of forests and the rest of the environment. I personaly don't think that the massive timber industries are going to grind to a halt because people clicked various sites.


But still, If they claim it helps - I'll click the sites.

[kahljorn]

"doesn't that "nonstandard" mean that it's still improper usage?"

Yes, but if you really wanted to get into, "Improper" and "Proper English Etiquette", you would have to take the side of those british guys who say America destroyed the English language. Like half the American-English language is improper.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Unfortunatley, some people think they can just click a site and be done with it; that's their enviro-saving for the day - it makes people feel better about themselves.
I still click the sites, but I think you realise that simply clicking a site is not going to stop the destruction of forests and the rest of the environment. I personaly don't think that the massive timber industries are going to grind to a halt because people clicked various sites.

I agree. Just clicking a site is not enough. But at least it does something.
Speaking of which, I have shitload of other non-rainforest click-a-day sites. Want me to PM you a list?

[kahljorn]

We should all get guns and go kill everybody who destroys the enviroment, serious. Most non-enviromentalist think they shouldn't have to pay for it and it should be done by the Individual, so we should just kill them. Play God and shit. Might as well, things need taking care of. Facist style!

[Zhukov]

I agree. Just clicking a site is not enough. But at least it does something.
Speaking of which, I have shitload of other non-rainforest click-a-day sites. Want me to PM you a list?

Sure

Sorry for the slow reply.

[Mike]

Oh right. I seriously doubt that they can actually tell where the oxygen is coming from, but I don't even think that's the point.

What it boils down to is the difference between people who only care about the rainforests for how useful it is to humans, and the people who feel that the loss of the rainforests is a painful shame. When I hear about the deforestation in places like Indonesia, Mexico and South America I feel it in the gut because I've been to and loved these places. I'm not a hippy or a treehugger, I know what it's like to be alive and happy in a glorious world and it kills me to read about stuff like that.

[O71394658]

I believe the best way to save the rainforests is to teach the natives the value of the rainforests. The slash n' burn cultivation techniques require mass migration every couple of years for farming families. Rainforest soils have poor nutrient levels that are only maintained by various tree species. When the rainforests are cleared by farming natives, the nutrient levels are decreased to the point that the farmer gets little or no crop yield. Thus, he must move along and cut down another portion of the rainforest, and the cycle continues.

Rain forest destruction has various hidden and external costs that aren't normally taken into account. Oxygen level would readily not be affected. As another poster pointed out, algae in the ocean produce most of the oxygen. The primary effect that environmentalists use of rainforest destruction is global warming. (Though I believe global warming is WAY too overdone). In actuality, increase in global temperatures would probably help global food production. An experiment I've read about in a journal points to the fact that crop yields actually increase in the face of increase carbon dioxide levels. Also, global climate belt shifts would allow for increased production levels in areas currently unsuitable for crops due to unfavorable weather and climactic conditions. Such areas are massive land areas, including land masses in both Russia and Canada. But, the United States crop yields would probably decrease, or the U.S. would have to shift to other crops due to a change in weather patterns.

Though none of this really justifies rainforest destruction, it is in fact true. The loss of biodiversity in the rainforest would probably wreck havoc on global food chains...maybe even causing large "chain reaction" type consequences, resulting in species extinction worldwide. The question has also arisen of potential medical properties or crops for undiscovered rainforest plants. In addition, I would also like to point out oceans. Recently, its been discovered that a fish (I can't remember the name) venom used to paralyze its prey can be used as a very effective painkiller. It is 10,000 times more potent than morphine and has shown no adverse side-effects (like addiction). It is currently undergoing testing by the FDA. I do in fact support that such medicinal or crop potential lies in the rainforest.

[kahljorn]

Now I can start shooting up fish instead of plants. Good ol' technology