Rainforests 'environmentally irrelevant'
by Molly Watson in New York
Two leading environmental scientists have dismissed claims that
rainforests are being destroyed at a dangerous rate, arguing that they
are environmentally "irrelevant".
"All these save-the-forest arguments are based on bad science," said
Patrick Moore, a Canadian founder of Greenpeace. "They are quite
simply wrong. We found that the Amazon rainforest is more than 90
per cent intact."
Professor Philip Stott, of London University's School of Oriental and
African Studies and editor of the Journal of Biogeography with more
than 30 years' experience in the field, agrees with Mr Moore that
ecology campaigns led by celebrities like Sting and Leonardo DiCaprio
are "a con based on bad science".
"This 'lungs of the earth business' is nonsense; the daftest of all
theories," said Professor Stott. "In fact, because the trees fall down
and decay, rainforests actually take in slightly more oxygen than they
give out. The idea of them soaking up carbon monoxide and giving out
oxygen is a myth. It's only fast-growing young trees that actually take
up carbon dioxide.
"If the rainforest in Amazonia was being destroyed at the rate
critics say, it would have all vanished ages ago. In terms of world
systems, the rainforests are basically irrelevant. World weather is
governed by the oceans - that great system of ocean atmospherics. Most
things that happen on land are mere blips to the system, basically
insignificant."
The scientists say that, rather than clamouring to save the
rainforests, movie and rock stars should turn their attention to
protecting oceans, which are more likely to provide cures for diseases
than jungle plants and animals.
(C) Associated Newspapers Ltd., 30 May 2000
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|