This recent article in the New York Times provides a relevant discussion on the debate about whether new growth forests in tropical areas are ecologically equivalent to primeval rain forests, in terms of their ability to absorb carbon dioxide and provide a suitable habitat for native species, etc. Take a look!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/science/earth/30forest.html?_r=1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Interesting article. Kind of the Bjorn Lomborg idea that we are better off then most people tend to think. Still I remain on the skeptical side. Neither side of the argument had any truly solid evidence that their point of view was right. I'd like to think the habitats could become populated with complex ecosystems of animals but unless we intend to move the animals there I don't think they intend to trek through Panama city. Until the pro-new growth side can provide me with some hard evidence I think ill stick with "Save the Rain Forest"
Post a Comment