Article Summary: 'Second Life'

The article ‘Second Life’ was printed in The Economist on January 15th, 2009. The link to the article is: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12926042

It has been claimed that 100 species become extinct every day. Yet according to Joseph Wright of the Smithsonian Tropical Institute and Helene Muller-Landau of the University of Minnesota, these predictions are overstated and there is the possibility for environmental improvement. Not only is the human population growth slowing in many tropical countries; the increasing urbanization of the population is leaving agriculturally marginal land vacant and open for a ‘second forest’ to re-grow. Wright and Muller-Landau predicted that this land would, within a few decades, regain half of the original biomass, allowing for its re-colonization by many species. They believe that by 2030, more than one third of the tropical forests original territory will still remain and in certain areas, its size could even increase. Due to this, the rate of extinction should also decline.
This view is, though positive, not taking into account certain factors and ‘symptoms’ that may or may not affect the rate of extinction, as well as the forest growth rate. One of these, proposed by Elizabeth Bennet of the Wildlife Conservation Society, is that though tropical forests look healthy from satellite pictures, in reality they are empty; this is known as ‘empty forest syndrome’. This is because large birds and mammals are less resistant and therefore more likely to become extinct; in addition, they are hunted and used for trade. Though the extinction rate has been overstated, the species that survive are insects. Secondly, a country’s population growth rate is not the sole indicator of the expected growth rate of the tropical forest. Industries require land for production and it is likely that the vacant land will not remain so for long; the liberalization of agriculture and the rise in demand for bio-fuels alone could lead to the increase in demand for land in the tropics. In addition, climate change is another unfavorable factor that affects the rate of extinction; certain tropical species are not equipped to deal with a rise in temperature by as little as 3°C. In conclusion, the optimistic prediction of these two individuals takes into account certain positive aspects of human development; however, the reality of many negative factors will probably guarantee that their hopes will never be fulfilled.

'Fewer creatures great and small' Article Summmary

The article ’Fewer creatures great and small' was printed in 'The Economist' on October 16th 2008. Here is the link to the article: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12432305

This article is about how, due to mankind, the rate of extinction is at an all-time high and though steps such as the Convention of Biological Diversity have been taken, no real effort is being made to preserve the world’s biodiversity. The formerly mentioned treaty was signed by nearly all governments in 2002 and vowed to significantly reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010. However, this goal seems impossible to reach now, as the newest version of the red list of threatened species published by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) shows that, for example, 223 species whose condition had changed from the previous year are now closer to extinction. A major factor affecting this rate is global warming, which according to predictions, could kill 20 -30% of species if global average temperatures increased by more than 2°C. What people don’t realize is that many benefits come from natural processes, for example, the pollination of crops, whose losses cost the world inordinate amounts of money each year. A solution, though it is not flawless, was proposed by Johan Eliasch. He stated that if forests were included in the carbon market, therefore forcing the reduction of deforestation (which accounts for very high carbon emissions), then global warming could be slowed and biodiversity could be saved, in addition to poverty being lessened. The problem with this plan is that it would cost the world huge, according to predictions, $4 billion a year for 5 years and a further $ 11-19 billion until 2020. However, deforestation rates would decrease by 75% by 2030 and carbon emissions would sink by 50%. At the moment, the world will have to make do with the small steps made by a small percentage of the world’s countries. Yet at present moment, the economic crisis is probably the primary problem on these governments’ minds.
.