Key Issues> Biodiversity

In an emotionally-charged topic like the rainforest,
getting to the truth can prove
almost as hard as finding
the glittering city of the ancient Golden King

by David Rothbard and Craig Rucker

In the mysterious jungle known as the Amazon, legend had it there lived a Golden King named El Dorado said to be so rich that each day he used gold dust to adorn his royal body. For Gonzalo Pizarro, brother of the famous conqueror of the Incas, this vision was more than he could bear. So in 1540, setting off with 4,000 Indians, 200 horses, 3,000 swine, and packs of hunting dogs, Pizarro breached the Eastern edge of the great jungle and began his quest to find and pillage El Dorado and his land of the cinnamon forests.

Pizarro, of course, never did find the Golden King. And after throwing countless numbers of the hapless tribesmen he came across to the ravenous hounds or roasting them on barbacoa when they denied knowledge of the mythical city, he was forced to return to Quito, Peru a beaten man. He had not found treasure in the Amazon.

Since that time, there have been many others who have descended into the Emerald Forest. But perhaps content with a vision a bit less grandiose, these enterprising souls have found riches abundant in the magnificent natural bounty of this exotic land.

In the Amazon rainforest, some of the richest ore bodies in the world have been discovered. Highly-prized woods such as teak, mahogany, and rosewood can also be found. Over the years, the unique vegetation and growing conditions of the region has produced a virtual pantry of sought-after goods ranging from medicines and spices to a host of distinctively tropical products like rubber, coffee, chocolate, and chewing gum. And this does not even mention the ecological cornucopia hidden beneath the dense green canopy of tropical rainforests which are home to more than two-thirds of the 1.4 million species known to man.

So yes, the Amazon does indeed hold a rich bounty. But it is certainly not the extent of its wealth alone that has recently made the word "rainforest" a common term heard in schoolyards, living rooms, and legislative halls around the world. Rather, it is pictures of the charred remains of once lush jungles and numbers likened to one football field per second that have made the rainforest, and the Amazon in particular, a topic of international concern.

Some environmentalists claim that with current rates of destruction, tropical rainforests will all soon be gone, that nearly half the species on planet earth will all soon be extinguished, and that these areas must basically be put off limits to all but a few tribesmen if we are to have any hope of saving what they would call this Eden-like paradise. But in an emotionally-charged issue like the rainforest, getting to the truth can prove almost as hard as finding the glittering city of the ancient Golden King.

Football fields or not even enough
for a first down?

"With the simple ax, the mighty chainsaw, and all- powerful fire...each year 28 million acres of tropical forest are destroyed...for crop production, fuelwood gathering, and cattle ranching. Commercial timber harvesting degrades at least an additional 11 million." believes Sandra Postel of Worldwatch Institute.

So is it 40 million acres per year as Postel suggests? Well that's the number commonly bandied about, but some environmentalists use slightly lower figures. The World Resources Institute says, "Every year, at least 27 million acres of tropical forests are lost -- an area the size of Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Virginia." Others say more.

Former Vice President Al Gore claimed 51 million acres per year are lost. And one of the largest Green groups on this issue, the Rainforest Action Network, said the number is 78 million acres per year, or an area larger than all of Poland.

Where do they get these figures?

It turns out the central basis for the 40 million acres figure comes from a Brazilian scientist who used a U.S. weather satellite to count the number of fires burning in the Amazon at any one time in 1988 (at the height of government-subsidized deforestation), haphazardly guessed at the size of each, and then simply doubled the number to come up with his worldwide total.

However, according to the Heartland Institute, when two American researchers took a more studious look in 1993, painstakingly comparing overhead photos from 1978 and 1988 and entering into a computer every tiny forest clearing, road, and power-line right of way, they concluded the average annual rate of loss was just 3.7 million acres, making the global rate just over 7 million, or one-fifth the widely accepted number.

In gridiron terms, this means that if all the world's rainforests equalled one football field, even at the "rapid" destruction rate of the late 1980's (which many experts say won't continue since government subsidies have all but ended and there's currently no way to get into the deeper interior), we would lose less than 3.6 inches per year, and it would take more than 500 years just to make it past midfield.

So it's little wonder that even the usually pessimistic Worldwatch Institute went on the record as saying, "With nearly 90% of its groves still standing...the Brazilian Amazon is relatively untouched."

Island hopping

One cannot paddle his raft very far into a discussion about rainforest loss without talking about the catastrophe this is alleged to be having on the world's species. Environmental biologist Edward O. Wilson claims as many as 50,000 species are being lost each year and the widely-quoted Norman Myers maintains the world could "lose one-quarter of all species by the year 2000." But again the question must be asked, where do they get these figures?

Myers himself openly admits "we have no way of knowing the actual current rate of extinction in tropical forests, nor can we even make an accurate guess."

So what the alarmed scientists do offer are merely predictions based on a mathematical theory called the "species-area curve." This theory, linked to the study of isolated islands, says that for every 90% loss in area, the number of species that can live there is cut in half. The one little problem with this, though, is that the real world has hardly operated according to the theory.

To state the obvious, islands and continents have enormous differences. While islands are surrounded by water which is usually pretty hostile to land species, terrestrial habitats are surrounded by land, which can accommodate migrating species just a bit more easily.

No doubt this is why only three forest birds went extinct in 300 years in America, even though the virgin woodlands of the eastern U.S. were hacked down to just a fraction of their original area during that time (and for two of the birds, habitat loss didn't even play a major role).

It's also the likely reason a team of zoologists that combed the Atlantic coastal forests of Brazil could not confirm a single case of extinction, even though those forests have been cut to about 12% of their original size.

And even on the island of Puerto Rico where human activity reduced the area of primary forest by 99%, the theory didn't hold true since only seven birds became extinct and the total number of species actually increased from 60 at the time of Columbus to 97 today.

The new iron curtain

"If people are to have better jobs and make enough money so that they may have better homes and food and clothes, Brazil must develop her resources and expand her industries. Areas like the Amazon Valley, and much of the interior, must be fully explored."


Throughout most of the human experience, the idea of developing the natural resources of a land and thereby improving the lives of its people was not even a point of debate. Today, however, instead of looking to a place like the rainforest to see how it can wisely be used to benefit mankind, the prevailing thought is to basically put an iron gate around the whole thing with a big "Keep Out" sign clearly posted.

Most assuredly, the grossly exaggerated numbers concerning deforestation rates and its threat to species have been used to lend credence to this notion. But some advocates have sought to further bolster a "hands-off" agenda by painting the rainforest as an ancient natural paradise, virtually untouched and unspotted by human hands until recent times, and as expressed in one Sierra Club book, as a "fragile, non-renewable resource." Disturb it, they say, and it's simply gone forever.

In reality, according to leading expert Dr. Nigel Smith of the University of Florida, "One of the most persistent myths about Amazonia is that it has long been a wilderness, virtually untouched by humans until relatively recently." He points to evidence showing populations of between one and seven million in Amazonia around A.D. 1500 and concludes, "in spite of the development push that began in the 1960's, it seems unlikely that the area cleared today is any larger than it was in 1500."

Since its often hard to find even remnants of these lost tribes beneath the thick broad leaves of the Amazonian jungle, the rainforest is apparently more resilient than many would think.

Does this mean we should go in with bulldozers, axes, and fires ablazing? Obviously not. Tropical rainforests are certainly a valuable ecological entity. But just as the U.S. and Europe have been allowed to use significant portions of their land to meet the needs of their people, so too must developing nations like Brazil be given that same opportunity. For in the end, with the environmental conservation that comes with increased wealth, this will likely prove what's best for both man and nature.