Tropical Forests done a disservice by the NYT
A recent article in the NYT stirred my ire, but it looks like my letter to the editor didn't make the cut since I didn't include a prestigious-sounding organization along with my attack on the NYT's journalistic fact-checking. I feel very sad that no one has pointed out a fundamental factual error in the article that completely changes its interpretation.
Lies have been put forward as truth by the NY Times, of all places. For shame!
The article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/science/earth/30forest.html?ref=science
To the Editor:
RE: “New Jungles Prompt a Debate on Rain Forests” (Article: Jan. 30). The regrowth of tropical rainforests in some countries is a hopeful sign. Sadly, the statistics and conclusions on forest regrowth reported in your article are erroneous, and I urge the Times to issue a retraction of the article.
It was reported that “38 million acres of original rain forest are being cut down every year”, an area the size of Michigan. This reasonable estimate of forest loss was contrasted against the “2.1 billion acres of potential replacement forest growing in the tropics— an area almost as large as the United States.” This figure is a thousand times too high. Although satellite estimates are less optimistic, the FAO currently estimates that forest regrowth covers about 14 million acres annually in the tropics (Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005, page xii). To have 2.1 billion acres of tropical forest regrowth, all of humanity would have to abandon agriculture in the tropics.
This article fundamentally misrepresents the deforestation crisis. In reality, the amount of tropical deforestation dwarfs the amount of regrowing tropical forest (38 vs. 14 million acres), and tropical deforestation shows no signs of slowing down.
Articles that delve into scientific controversy must pay careful attention to the facts. It is irresponsible to advance a sense of complacency about the rapid and tragic loss of rainforests around the world. It is even more irresponsible to do so with incorrect statistics.
Matthew
Lies have been put forward as truth by the NY Times, of all places. For shame!
The article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/science/earth/30forest.html?ref=science
To the Editor:
RE: “New Jungles Prompt a Debate on Rain Forests” (Article: Jan. 30). The regrowth of tropical rainforests in some countries is a hopeful sign. Sadly, the statistics and conclusions on forest regrowth reported in your article are erroneous, and I urge the Times to issue a retraction of the article.
It was reported that “38 million acres of original rain forest are being cut down every year”, an area the size of Michigan. This reasonable estimate of forest loss was contrasted against the “2.1 billion acres of potential replacement forest growing in the tropics— an area almost as large as the United States.” This figure is a thousand times too high. Although satellite estimates are less optimistic, the FAO currently estimates that forest regrowth covers about 14 million acres annually in the tropics (Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005, page xii). To have 2.1 billion acres of tropical forest regrowth, all of humanity would have to abandon agriculture in the tropics.
This article fundamentally misrepresents the deforestation crisis. In reality, the amount of tropical deforestation dwarfs the amount of regrowing tropical forest (38 vs. 14 million acres), and tropical deforestation shows no signs of slowing down.
Articles that delve into scientific controversy must pay careful attention to the facts. It is irresponsible to advance a sense of complacency about the rapid and tragic loss of rainforests around the world. It is even more irresponsible to do so with incorrect statistics.
Matthew
posted by Tree Texan at 11:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home