# Why is the Amazon being logged? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 14, 2004, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-amazon-being-logged/224456 "2004-01-14T21:33:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![JoeyThePenguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbce88/32.png) [@JoeyThePenguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoeyThePenguin)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-amazon-being-logged/224456/1 "2004-01-14T21:33:59Z")
I am doing a school research project. I just visited the web site [www.rain-tree.com](http://www.rain-tree.com). It says that it is less profitable to log the Amazon rainforest than to profit from it in other ways, especially in using it for the production of drugs. If it is obviously more profitable to leave the Amazon intact, why is it still being logged? Joey. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-amazon-being-logged/224456/2 "2004-01-14T21:43:38Z")
Even if it’s more profitable in the long term to produce drugs, logging comapnies aren’t in that business. They make a (quick) profit from cutting down trees. ---
**Author:** ![JoeyThePenguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbce88/32.png) [@JoeyThePenguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoeyThePenguin)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-amazon-being-logged/224456/3 "2004-01-14T22:02:40Z")
Where might I get more specific and precise statistics on how the short term profits of logging compare to the long term profits of leaving them intact? Joey ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-amazon-being-logged/224456/4 "2004-01-14T23:08:42Z")
Seeing as it’s homework, maybe you should find out some answers for yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-amazon-being-logged/224456/5 "2004-01-14T23:17:08Z")
Would you rather earn $1 million this year, or take $1,000 this year but have the knowledge that you, and your children, and their children, can earn that much next year, and the year after… and so on? If you go for the second option then well done for seeing the big picture, but you might not go far in the logging business 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-amazon-being-logged/224456/6 "2004-01-14T23:49:27Z")
Quite frankly I find the claim outrageous. “Schneider (1992) reports upper bound values of $300 per hectare for land in Rondonia, Brazil.” ([http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpa15/EDINBG.pdf](http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpa15/EDINBG.pdf)). In other words land in the Amazon is only worth $120/acre. If it were possible to obtain a return of $2,400/acre in perpetuity from sustainable harvesting that amounts to a nearly 2000% return on investment _annually_ . If that were true every investor in the world would pouring money into buying rainforest in the Amazon as fast as they could. I would have to call the whole website into question. Raintree is an ‘alternative medicine’ manufacturer. They have a vested interest in presenting an eco-friendly viewpoint to increase sales. Despite several links to papers on there page I can not find the source for their claim that “The latest statistics show that rainforest land converted to cattle operations yields the land owner $60 per acre and if timber is harvested, the land is worth $400 per acre. However, if these renewable and sustainable resources are harvested, the land will yield the land owner $2,400 per acre.” It is more than a little suspicious that they have the space to provide references, but not that most important reference. Joey you need to understand that most of the information on the internet is unreliable. You can’t just believe something because it appears on a webpage of a company making money out of selling products based on the fact that they save the rainforest. I strongly suggest that you evaluate the Raintree page against the following webpage and see what conclusion you come to about trusting it. [http://www.lib.lfc.edu/internetsearch/evalweb.html](http://www.lib.lfc.edu/internetsearch/evalweb.html) It seems that raintree fails or is suspect on almost all points. Of particular relevance is: > [@](#): > > Objectivity > · Does the author have a bias or agenda? (Is this bias stated or hidden?) > · Does the author indicate his or her goal in providing the information? > · Is there a disclaimer included in page? > · “Objectivity” can work closely with “Authority” > Good Example: The American Cancer Society clearly states the goal in providing the information and does not appear to have a bias for the type of information provided. > [http://www.cancer.org/](http://www.cancer.org/) > > Questionable Example: This page provides an article about Attention Deficit Disorder with recommended nutritional treatments, however the author of the page is **linked to a company that sells nutritional supplements.** Bolding mine. In this case the autor _is_ the company selling the nutritional supplements. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-amazon-being-logged/224456/7 "2004-01-14T23:58:33Z")
> [@](#): > > Would you rather earn $1 million this year, or take $1,000 this year but have the knowledge that you, and your children, and their children, can earn that much next year, and the year after… and so on? > > If you go for the second option then well done for seeing the big picture, but you might not go far in the logging business The problem is that the raintree company is saying exactly the opposite. They are saying that logging only returns only return $400/acre and cattle rasing $60dollars/acre while _sustained_ harvesting yields $2400 dollars/acre. It doesn’t mention whether these are annual figures or on some longer timeframe, but they are both clearly presented as being calculated on the same basis. In other words Raintree is saying that logging returns $1000 this year and sustained harvesting returns $1 million dollars this year. If the logging and cattle raising figures are only for one year and the harvesting figure is calculated over some longer timeframe then the comparison is meaningless because they have not told us what that timeframe is. That such a question could even be asked shows that the Raintree page is not a credible source of information. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-amazon-being-logged/224456/8 "2004-01-15T00:01:44Z")
At what dollar value do you place depleting the Amazon rainforest and the resulting changes to the world climate by logging? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-amazon-being-logged/224456/9 "2004-01-15T00:17:07Z")
From the paper I linked to earlier it appears that it is compete bunkum. Both figures are hideously overblown. The $400 timber value becomes around $45/acre. “TaLampietti and Dixon note that most of the studies relate to Central and South America (14 studies out of 20 analysed). Average per hectare values come to $86-101 for Central and South America” The $2,400/acre figure for harvesting becomes $5/acre, maximum. “With regard to pharmaceutical products, the subject of extensive debate, Pearce and Puroshothaman (1995) suggest values of $0.01 to $21 ha per year, based on established probabilities of finding a successful drug from plant species currently at risk. This assumes a tropical forest area of 1 billion hectares. Ruitenbeek (1989) has rough estimates of medicinal plant value in the Korup forest, Cameroun, which translate to around $0.2 to $0.7 per hectare. Using a very different approach, Simpson et al (1994) suggest that, taking an optimistic point of view, a pharmaceutical company’s willingness to pay would be a maximum of $20 per hectare in Western Ecuador and very much less, perhaps $1 per hectare, elsewhere. Thus, adopting different approaches, these studies produce very low values for pharmaceutical values. Mendelsohn and Balick (1995) suggest a value of undiscovered tropical forest drugs to the pharmaceutical companies of $2.8-4.1 billion. They divide this by 3.1 billion hectares of tropical forest to obtain average values of $0.9 to $1.3 per hectare. The 3.1 billion hectares figures appears to be an exaggeration, whereas the Pearce-Puroshothaman (1995) estimate appears too low. Using a figure of 1.7 billion hectares of total tropical forest, the Pearce-Puroshothaman figures would reduce further to a range of nearly zero to $12.3 per hectare, and the Mendelsohn-Balick figures would rise to $1.6 to $2.4 per hectare5. " ---
**Author:** ![LemonThrower](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d2c977/32.png) [@LemonThrower](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LemonThrower)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-amazon-being-logged/224456/10 "2004-01-15T15:00:49Z")
I understood that most deforestation in the Amazon occurs as the result of persons in poverty clearing land for subsistence agriculture. Most logging occurs within 300 miles of a sawmill in order to be cost effective. So I think the question posed is a strawman and is not the right question to be asking. If you begin with the premise that the Amazon should not be de-forested, then the question should by why is it being deforested, and how can it be stopped? I have a hard time telling someone in the Amazon not to cut down some trees to grow food to eat. Also, the Amazon is huge. I don’t think there is any bar to using the Amazon now for drug research. But I don’t think the subsistence farmers have the funds to invest in drug research and defer eating until their drugs (if any) are ready for market. ---
**Author:** ![Janx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Janx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Janx)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-amazon-being-logged/224456/11 "2004-01-15T16:12:13Z")
\*\* LemonThrower \*\* wrote… > [@](#): > > I understood that most deforestation in the Amazon occurs as the result of persons in poverty clearing land for subsistence agriculture That’s about it, but it is not the whole story. (you cant see my location any more but I am writing from São Paulo, Brazil) First go to google and look up the key words \*\* slash and burn amazon \*\* (I got back more than 19,000 hits), learn about this because it is one of the biggest answers to your question. The other problem is that the U.S. and Europe create a market for the deforestation. People go out to government land and poach Teak and other hard woods that are endangered, the more common trees are also sold as pulp to make paper. Since regulations are hardly enforced (or officials are simply bribed to look the other way) there is really no real incentive to do any thing in sustainable way. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-amazon-being-logged/224456/12 "2004-01-15T16:31:24Z")
> [@LemonThrower](#): > > I understood that most deforestation in the Amazon occurs as the result of persons in poverty clearing land for subsistence agriculture. Most logging occurs within 300 miles of a sawmill in order to be cost effective. This may be true in some areas but not in the Brazilian Amazon. Most deforestation is done for large-scale cattle ranching, by wealthy investors, although deforestation by poor subsistence farmers is also very important. A growing cause of deforestation is the development of large-scale soybean farms (again by wealthy investors). From [here:](http://www.fas.usda.gov/pecad/highlights/2004/01/Amazon/Amazon_soybeans.htm) > [@](#): > > Historically, agricultural interests (cattle ranchers, colonists, and migratory subsistence farmers) have had a preeminent role in the overall deforestation of the Amazon region. Deforestation for agricultural use is estimated to be occurring at a rate of nearly 2.0 million hectares per year, largely due to demands from cattle ranchers and small-scale subsistence farmers. Environmental and social scientists estimate that there are approximately 600,000 small-scale subsistence farmers in the Brazilian Amazon, and that on average they clear about 0.6 million hectares of forest each year to cultivate crops. Large-scale commercial ranchers, though far fewer in number, are thought to be responsible for the remaining 1.4 million hectares of deforestation each year. In other words, cattle ranchers are responsible for more than twice the deforestation by subsistence farmers. In many cases, the long-term value tropical forest land is probably greater when it is kept as forest than when it is converted to cattle or agricultural land. However, one has to take into account many other factors in calculating this value - ecosystem services such as rainfall, prevention of climate change, loss of biodiversity, etc. - rather than the just the possibility of the sustainable harvest of non-timber forest products such as medicinal plants. Since these ecosystem services are externalities - that is, not of direct and clear benefit to those who are doing the deforestation - they are usually not taken into account as a cost. ---
**Author:** ![Futile\_Gesture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f05b48/32.png) [@Futile\_Gesture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futile_Gesture)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-amazon-being-logged/224456/13 "2004-01-15T16:50:35Z")
> [@Duckster](#): > > At what dollar value do you place depleting the Amazon rainforest and the resulting changes to the world climate by logging? The influence of the rainforests on world climate is way over-rated. However, this is not to say that there is a few million other reasons to value the Amazon rainforest far above it’s gross logging cash value. Think biodiversity; once it’s gone it’s gone forever. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-amazon-being-logged/224456/14 "2004-01-15T17:51:15Z")
> [@Futile Gesture](#): > > The influence of the rainforests on world climate is way over-rated. While the burning of fossil fuels is a much greater contibutor to atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] increase, tropical deforestation is also a significant cause. (One source I checked gave fossil fuel burning as contributing 58%, deforestation (most of which is tropical) as about 17%). This article gives some estimates of the values of various services of tropical forest land: > [@](#): > > **Timber** > conventional logging 200-4400 (NPV)[sup]1[/sup] > sustainable 300-2660 (NPV)[sup]1[/sup] > conventional logging 20- 440 > sustainable 30- 266 > **Fuelwood** 40 > **NTFPs** 0- 100 > **Genetic information[sup]2[/sup]** 0-3000 > **Recreation** 2- 470 (general) > 750 (forests near towns) > 1000 (unique forests) > **Watershed benefits** 15- 850 > **Climate benefits** 360- 2200 (GPV)[sup]3[/sup] > **Biodiversity** (other than genetics) ? > > 1. Annuitised net present value (NPV) at 10% for illustration; 2) Bioprospecting values are hotly debated, see for example Simpson & Sedjo (1996); 3) Assumes that compensation for carbon is a one off payment in the initial period and hence is treated as a present value. It is a gross present value (GPV) since no costs are deducted. “NTFPs” are non-timber forest products, such as medicinal plants, resins, fibers, latex, etc. From this list we can see that “climate benefits” is about the only value that can compete with logging for tropical forest land. NTFPs are relatively minor. And since climate benefits are externalities, they are rarely taken into account in valuing land use alternatives. ---
**Author:** ![Sergio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b77776/32.png) [@Sergio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sergio)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-amazon-being-logged/224456/15 "2004-01-15T19:44:49Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > While the burning of fossil fuels is a much greater contibutor to atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] increase, tropical deforestation is also a significant cause. (One source I checked gave fossil fuel burning as contributing 58%, deforestation (most of which is tropical) as about 17%). > > This article gives some estimates of the values of various services of tropical forest land: > > “NTFPs” are non-timber forest products, such as medicinal plants, resins, fibers, latex, etc. > > From this list we can see that “climate benefits” is about the only value that can compete with logging for tropical forest land. NTFPs are relatively minor. And since climate benefits are externalities, they are rarely taken into account in valuing land use alternatives. The tropical forests are in equilibrium. There is no net growth, so all the oxigen produced by photosyntesis during the day is consumed by the respiration of plants during the night. The CO2 thus produced is further incremented by Co2 resulting from decomposition of organic material. I agree that rain forests must be protected for preservation of biodiversity, but not for their climate benefits. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-amazon-being-logged/224456/16 "2004-01-15T20:29:01Z")
Does anybody knowif the huge investment made by the late D.K. Ludwig in the Amazon region ever paid off? In the 1970’s Ludwig set up a huge pulp paper plantation at Jari, off the Amazon. He tried to plant tropical pines, after the native jungle was burned out…last I heard the investment never paid off…is Jari still functioning? Has ANYBODY ever been able to farm the Amazon region (profitably)? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-amazon-being-logged/224456/17 "2004-01-15T20:43:00Z")
> [@Sérgio](#): > > The tropical forests are in equilibrium. There is no net growth, so all the oxigen produced by photosyntesis during the day is consumed by the respiration of plants during the night. The CO2 thus produced is further incremented by Co2 resulting from decomposition of organic material. > I agree that rain forests must be protected for preservation of biodiversity, but not for their climate benefits. When forests are cut and burned, most of the carbon they contained enters the atmosphere. (Even when forests are logged, most of the wood ends up being burned, since most tropical forests contain hundreds of species of trees only a few of which are of valuable for timber.) The “climate benefits” of forests in these valuations are those that accrue from _not_ logging them. That is, logging them produces a “negative” value in terms of climate change that must be offset against the value of conversion (the price of the timber harvested, plus the economic returns of cattle or agriculture on that land). A great deal of current research indicates that tropical forests are _not_ currently be in equilibrium. Studies indicate that Amazonian forests may be increasing in biomass, due perhaps to increased uptake of CO[sub]2[/sub]. (Of course, because of the very high rate of deforestation, the net amount of carbon contained in these forests is falling overall, even though locally forests are increasing in mass.) From [here](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1213_carbonsink.htm) > [@](#): > > Research has shown that mature forest trees in the Amazon have gained in size over the last 20 years, but scientists aren’t sure what’s causing it. Nor do they know what effect it might have on global warming, although tropical forests in the Amazon are an important component in the global climate and water cycle. . . . > > The issue has been a subject of intense interest since 1998, when Oliver Phillips of the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom published the results of a study showing that mature forests in the Amazon have become more massive over the last 20 years. > > Phillips hypothesizes that the Amazon forests have become more massive as a result of increased amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which the trees and vegetation absorb. . . . > > The increased mass of Amazonian forests suggests they are acting as a huge “carbon sink,” absorbing more carbon from the atmosphere than they release. The discovery was unexpected because mature forests were thought to be “carbon neutral,” giving off as much carbon as they absorb each day. . . . > > Given the assumption that the Amazon forests are gaining mass as a result of the carbon-sink phenomenon, an important question is how long the effect will last. . . . > > A computer modeling study done recently by Peter Cox, a scientist at the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction in the United Kingdom, shows that as temperatures rise, forests could dry out and become a source rather than a sink of carbon. It may also be that as temperatures rise, trees will reach a point at which they can no longer increase photosynthesis, which could also lead to them becoming a net carbon source. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-amazon-being-logged/224456/18 "2004-01-15T20:52:18Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Does anybody knowif the huge investment made by the late D.K. Ludwig in the Amazon region ever paid off? In the 1970’s Ludwig set up a huge pulp paper plantation at Jari, off the Amazon. He tried to plant tropical pines, after the native jungle was burned out…last I heard the investment never paid off…is Jari still functioning? [History of the Jari Project](http://www.architexturez.net/FILES/essays/vazio-teixeira.jari.shtml) In short, it was a financial disaster, for a variety of reasons. Ludwig was bought out by Brazilian interests. Although the project is still functioning after a fashion, most of the income is going to service the enormous debt.