Rainforest or oil plantation - which is ‘greener’?

By Charlie December 3, 2008 2 comments

Which is better for the environment: a natural forest aeons old, or a new palm plantation on cleared ground? A major international study says palm oil plantations - which are replacing forests throughout Asia - reduce plant and animal diversity and do little to reduce carbon emissions. Who could have guessed…

Tags:

Have you seen the cool 10,000 Birds t-shirts? Get yours today!


About the Author

Charlie

Charlie

Charlie works for an airline and has birded all over the world for twenty years. He wants to be a writer, and thinks no-one would believe his life could be so charmed if he didn't take photos of as many of the birds he sees as possible. Blogging with 10,000 Birds fits his aims, needs, and insecurities perfectly. Really - do birders get much more fortunate than this?

2 Responses to “Rainforest or oil plantation - which is ‘greener’?”

  1. Augh! I’m glad to see that the study has been published, but shouldn’t the conclusions have been fairly obvious? Hmm, what did we THINK would happen if we burned down a forest? How have we failed so miserably to impart even a basic understanding of ecological principles?

  2. Hi David. I know - frustratingly bloody obvious, but I guess the data still needs to be collected: though whether ecological principles that benefit all will ever overrule short-term economic gain that benefit a wealthy few just because the data says it should is IMHO unlikely at the moment…

Share Your Thoughts

You can use these XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <strong>