Isn't this ironic...

Golly, after 30 years of "save the rain forest" it turns out that it wasn't like, you know, a big deal. 

These new “secondary” forests are emerging in Latin America, Asia and other tropical regions at such a fast pace that the trend has set off a serious debate about whether saving primeval rain forest— an iconic environmental cause — may be less urgent than once thought. By one estimate, 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.

Contrary to the dogman of the modern Malthusians, the improvement comes from economic development.

Comments

[Cappucino Poster]

Never run contrary to the Dogman!

[Butt]

Maybe this is happening because of all the environmentalist's work to protect rain forests...

[Jay]

Dogman? Is that like Man-Bear-Pig??? Are you totally serial?

[The Klute]

Yeah, I think you need to go back and read the story, Greg:

"...more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster."

Why do you think the land is no longer being farmed or logged? It is because of the environmental movement that brought attention to the utter devastation and allowed groups like the Rainforest Coalition and the Nature Conservancy to purchase the land and leave it fallow or force the governments of Latin and South America to do so, or taught the locals how to do sustainable agriculture.

You act like business just decided to stop. That'd be like saying "Oh, well, look - Hooker Chemical decided to stop dumping chemicals into the Cuyahoga River and THAT'S why it doesn't burst into flame anymore".

Oh, and any comment about the demise of Pajamas Media's blogger network and the coming conservative blogosphere holocaust?

[M. Jaskie]

Except its clear from the article that this wasn't the doing by environmental groups who are identified as focusing on preventing deforestation.

As it points out "The idea [that rainforests are growing back] has stirred outrage among environmentalists"

Keep reading the article Klute and Butt, it explains that increased wealth, technologies, and demographic shifts have decreased the amount of farmland needed and encouraged people to move from subsistence farming to Industrial labor in the cities. It even warns that a recession (drop in wealth) could force people back to the farmland.

This isn't to say we shouldn't concern ourselves with loss to biodiversity but the scare tactics used by greenies about loss of the rainforest are out of line. Not to mention if they wanted to be intellectually honest they would support the destruction of old growth forests and farm corn or a more efficient consumer or CO2 on the land. (not that I buy the CO2 caused Greenhouse effect)

Sorry to feed the trolls but seeing these misrepresentations gets to me. We shouldn't be tolerating such scare tactics by the greens or the media, particularly when they generate anti-wealth, anti-technology, Malthusian drivel.

[The Klute]

"Keep reading the article Klute and Butt, it explains that increased wealth, technologies, and demographic shifts..."

Which I acknowledge with "...or taught the locals how to do sustainable agriculture."

Things like crop rotation, integrated pest management, etc. - all of which got their start with the greens, all lead to higher and healthier crop yields. And the push towards fair trade practices (also pushed by the greens) have led to better use of the land.

"This isn't to say we shouldn't concern ourselves with loss to biodiversity..."

Actually, that's exactly what Greg was implying with this: "...that it wasn't like, you know, a big deal." It would have worked out if the environmental movement just you know, let big business clear-cut the rainforest.

"Not to mention if they wanted to be intellectually honest they would support the destruction of old growth forests and farm corn or a more efficient consumer or CO2 on the land."

Climate change wasn't the concern. The concern was the destruction of old growth forests, biodiveristy, and oxygen production (the Congo, Brazil, and SE Asia are the primary producers of terrestrial O2, whereas the rivers that run through them provide the nutrients to feed the primary oceanic producers, plankton). Carbon sinks are a secondary, but important issue.

"We shouldn't be tolerating such scare tactics by the greens or the media, particularly when they generate anti-wealth, anti-technology, Malthusian drivel."

Blah blah blah - learn a new song. Save for nuclear power (which I happen to disagree with the mainstream environmental movement), Greens are constantly pushing new technology and trying to assist the third-world to move from "developing" status to "developed" without making the same mistakes that much of the Western world has (like the collapse of the Grand Banks fishery, the near extinction of vital and/or unique species, or the wholesale pollution of places like Love Canal or Kingston, TN).

[Jim Torgeson]

The more humans, the more forest we need. That part is simple.

[Dulce]

I have to clarify some things about agriculture for the sake of the debate...
Crop rotation and integrated pest management did not get their start with the greens. They got their start from farmers who wanted to increase their productivity and longevity. On the contrarty, the greens continue to push for organic farming, which requires the use of a lot more 'natural' chemicals than traditional farming not to mention the yields are much less thus requiring more land to produce the same amount of product. I'm sorry Klute - you're giving the greens way too much credit! Their ultimate goal is population reduction...but they know if they say that, people won't be so sympathetic to their cause.

[ccburro]

The more humans, the more energy, copper, iron, clean water, land, etc. etc. that are needed. The more humans competing for resources which are not limitless, the more likelihood of deprivation and war. [And, with more humans, at least the way it has been working out thus far, the more pollution of the air and water.] Is it rationale to want or encourage INCREASED population???

Also, increasing population will ultimately work against promotion of individual liberty, given human nature.

[Simon says:]

Good news is good news. I'm glad to have another reason to be happy this week.

[Chad]

Anthropogenic Global warming is the modern era's greatest political scam. Its simply a mixture of neo-socialism and a religion.

The earth is in a 40 year cooling trend. Impossible if warming caused by humans driving SUV's.

The earth's median tempture in the 12th and 13th Century was warmer than today.

The British High Court ruled Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" is mostly false (how inconvenient!).

Almost half of the scientists named in the UNIPCC disagree with what the liberal politicians make of it.

All Democrats who voted on Kyoto in 1998(?) voted AGAINST it. 95 Senators opposed, Zero in favor.

So-called Global Warming is just a power grab.

[James Davidson]

The best thing that nations of the world can do for the forests is turn them into private property. What destroys them, as it does to other depleting natural resources, is the tragedy of the commons. Make natural resources private, and the owner will cultivate them, husband them, and improve them.

In this country, for example, the federal government should phase out the Bureau of Land Management and sell all vacant public lands in the Western states save national parks, monuments, and other special set asides. By such sales we could eliminate the national debt, turn non-taxable land into land paying state and local property taxes, lead to far better management, and jump ahead again in productivity and wealth production. The amount of capital that would be invested in the Western states would be enormous.

We also could eliminate a source of corruption as insiders no longer would be able to trade parcels in remote areas for prime government land in areas ripe for development.