A stupid conservation idea: "don't worry, it'll grow back"
So apparently some specialists in the conservation community think that there is now a less urgent need to protect the rainforest because as farmers abandon their farms and move into the city, the forest grows back. According to these researchers, for every acre of Primeval Rainforest that gets cut down, 50 acres of “new growth” forest is born.
To me, this is the stupidest conservation idea ever. I’m no specialist, but I just spent a week in the Amazon and even I could tell there is a MAJOR difference between Primeval Rainforest and New Growth Forest. To put it simply, these two things are NOT the same. In terms of pure carbon, yes, you might be able to get enough New Growth to compensate for the loss or Primeval Rainforest, but carbon isn’t the only reason you want to preserve the rainforest. Our projects in South America focus on the other values of forest — watershed management, biodiversity conservation, cultural heritage, local weather patterns, erosion control. It takes centuries for the original forest to build up those assets, and new growth forests will not bring it back in 20 years.
To put it even more simply: this guy’s idea would be like if he burned down a museum full of Michelangelos and Picassos and then asked his five year old daughter to draw some paintings to make up for it. ITS NOT THE SAME.
