The finitude of forests

A scheme to save the world’s rainforests still seems too good to be true

See article

Readers' comments



Robert North

Palm Oil demand has rocketed thanks in large part to concerns over fossil fuels (soya in the Amazon). This type of deforestation is inexcusable and I blame naive 'green' politics as much as anyone capitalising directly from this new fuel source. The reason it is so problematic is because regardless of the Chinese or North American reforestation projects, 1 hectare of tropical rainforest is infinitely more valuable than 1 hectare of Northern Hemisphere usually mountainous (and hence drier soil) forest species. Both for its carbon absorbtion properties and its biodiversity. Anyone who thinks that chopping down tropical forests for biofuels is ok so long as we plant replacement trees in the northern hemisphere does not understand the science in the least, which seems to suggest that this scenario is actually the worst of all possible worlds. I wont even bother addressing the neo-libs who think that a carbon market (which encourages these distortions by not diferentiating between tree species) is the answer to our ills.


In 2008 total production was 160 m tonnes, of which 120 m tonnes went to food production. Therefore the argument, that the production of biodiesel is entirely to blame for deforestation in Indonesia doesn't hold much water, rather it is the food we eat that contributes a much bigger share.


@f800gs: if you planted those trees, good for you!(and all of us)

There is nothing confusing with biodiversity. The fault is in us; we have mostly been raised in an urban environment so detached from nature we are at pains to understand it. Imagine the pine tree forests in Europe, most human-planted in row after row of trees of the same species and even size.

Compare that with the natural tropical dry forest you must have seen in Costa Rica. The trees have not been planted by man, but have grown naturally over eons. You do not see one species such as pine trees, but hundreds of different species of trees living in the same area, so many that even natives know the name of only a few of them. Each has different wood, different leaves, different chemistry, different possible industrial applications, different possible medical usefulness, different resistance to such and such plague, and is eaten or otherwise used by different animals.This wealth, this diversity is what many of us feel is so vital to preserve,its endangerement is what the future will pass judgement on us for.

I also remember a guy I knew who bought a few hundred hectares of pristine tropical dry forest, cut those venerable, centenary trees down,sold the valuable hard woods and then applied for a World Bank reforestation loan and planted row after row of euchaliptus trees. A criminal, I would venture to say, but naturally quite in line with the criminal regimes that have ruled those lands since time inmemorial and to this day, not without some outside help.


Norway has offshore oil and gas. Indonesia has great potential in offshore oil and gas. Time will tell how much of this Norwegian benevolence is linked to shady deals between the Norwegian oil magnates and the Indonesian military . But in the meantime the Norwegian environmental minister does provide some amusing comic relief.

Robert North

@irianjaya; hi, yes there is an apparant inconsistency because my post did not provide a causal link between the last sentence and preceding ones, the issue is not carbon sequestration per se, rather it relates to the albedo effect (tropics vs nthn hemis), please see section 3.3.


@Robert North: interesting and astute posting. On balance I agree with you, but I think there is a logical inconsistency when you say on the one hand that 1 ha of tropical rainforest is more valuable than its temperate cousin in terms of its carbon value, and then turn around and say that the carbon market won't work because it doesn't recognize the different value of tropical v. temperate. I'm no market-is-omniscient adherent, but it would seem to me that carbon investors would grasp that basic fact and direct their projects accordingly.


Not all is lost. Now you Banyan can take some small comfort, for a change from China, and from the US.

According to UN World Resource Institute 2007 data, among the top five countries with largest forest areas (Russia, Brazil, Canada, the US, China, in that order), only China and the US have seem increase in its respective forest area from 1990 to 2007 period.

China has an increase of 30.7%, the largest percentage among the top 50 countries by forest area, to 2,054,056 sq Km for the period, and

The US has an increase of 1.6% to 3,034,070 sq Km for the same period.

They may not all be rain forest, but forest nonetheless.


@Robert North
... and the main buyers of Palm oil from Indonesia are Unilever and Nestlé, neither of which produces biodiesel. So how do your prejudice deal with that? To me it seems that Environmentalist-bashing is just another way for people to keep ignoring their own mistakes.

AB ve

There is more politics and less conservation here. Like all good practices, conserving planet has to begin at home, how we eat, drink, drive and entertain ourselves.

As long as economist keep encouraging growth of consumption and housing more than the replacement need of the population, there is no way any amount of conservation is going to work.

I request the readers to subscribe to the online edition of the economist and not the print one. Do the same for the local news paper.

abu tayyi

Sorry, Banyan. This scheme doesn't even "seem good." REDD is simply another bizarro idea from the loony ecoleft that pervades the Age of O. Let the Norwegians pour oil money down this rathole and into the gullets of the corrupt bureaucrats awaiting this opaque largesse. Keep the USA out of it! Just look at the varied comments attached below to see how flimsy this is....


@Robert North wrote: Apr 17th 2011 11:59 GMT

Very observant and illuminating on your post above, I have to say I agree with your post.

I have to say also, what’s done on the destruction of rainforest is a done deal and it will never come back perhaps in human existence. So the next best thing to do is to reforest and re-pasterize. The more the better I suppose.


I for one have planted 5,000 trees in Costa Rica. I hope that I am not doing anything wrong. All this is somewhat confusing.

Robert North

@tintifaxx: your figure of 160m tonnes is total global vegetable oil and fats production so its not really relevant to the argument. Around a third of that is palm oil. In Indonesia alone, Palm oil production has increased ten fold since 1994.

Patryk Olszanowski

Deforestation is on of the most serious and problematic issue in fast pacing world. The point is how can we develop our economy and catch up with the rest of the world if we should save our forest and undermine one of the most crucial facrot and phillar of indonesian inustry. I see a nedd to stop destroy forest but on the other hand i can't perceive the alternative opportunity to rechange this source of revenue. I thik that nobody should commend any decisions and base their opinion only on one argument. There are still many different ways of development but many of them have been still in the sphere of dreams. We need constanlt and even-balanced development without disturbance or violent decisions. Nevethless, thus i understand the anxiety of ecologists and those who care about enviroment and natural balance.


How strange that anyone with any common sense still believes the IPCC theory of anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming! Certainly puts the finis to the rumor there is intelligent life on Earth!


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
World Cup predictions: Scoring ourselves
Graphic detail July 12th, 19:03
Car technology: Turbocharged
Schumpeter July 12th, 9:00
Gun laws: Prayers and pistols
Democracy in America July 11th, 17:43
Daily chart: Justice on trial
Graphic detail July 11th, 13:40


Products and events



