I did not realize it went anywhere. If I see it I'll surely tell it to go back.
2007-09-04 06:47:32
·
answer #1
·
answered by hawk_barry 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The only other real reasons besides farming (including ranching) is the growth of towns (cut down the forest to build a town there), and to sell the wood (wood is expensive). Look at the town of Manaus in Brazil- they built the city out in the middle of the rainforest, in order to build some very large factories there. So they had to cut down some of the forst for that. Then, nobody lived out there, so they had to get a bunch of workers to move there, and build them all houses. Then of course, people need services- schools, restaurants, etc, so they built all of those. And of course, the airport and roads. Etc. Things like that lead to a lot less rainforest.
2007-09-04 12:01:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by bmwdriver11 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The push for bio-fuels fueled a growth in Palm oil. There is no ownership of the land so there is no incentive for long term management. Too often the governments are weak and ignorant. The governments don't want to crack down on the poor farmers that are slash and burning the forest. Too often, these governments are all too willing to take a short term profit by selling large tracks of forests for short term gain instead of developing policies of sustained utilization and proper management of resources.
2007-09-04 12:29:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by JimZ 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because man is gobbling up all of Earth's resources at an alarming rate. By the time your grandchildren are adults, little will be left of the planet's natural resources such as oil, coal, gas mangrove forests, clean waterways, rain forests, and countless species of plants and animals.
We have chosen to believe that everything on Earth is for our 'convenience' and comfort. We no longer regard the land and all creatures as sacred. We no longer assume that every living thing on Earth has a divine right to be here, just as we humans do. So we squander it, waste it, fail to recycle it, and simply assume that 'there's more where that came from'. -RKO- 09/04/07
2007-09-04 14:25:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by -RKO- 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
clear cutting vs selective harvest of lumber. Also they are not using sustainable agriculture practices or runoff management methods so the soil erodes quickly and they move on to other areas. The combination of lack of regulation on cutting down the trees plus affordable labor is making the clear cutting and slash a burn methods with no erosion practices affordable. Lots they could do to reduce the problem if they have the political will. it starts with education and information. Good luck.
2007-09-04 12:22:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by John M 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Slash and burn policies in the countries around the Amazon Basin. Soya is the crop causing problems. The farmers are not reusing land after they have cleared it but moving onto new land.
2007-09-04 11:59:31
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
the logging companies they just cut it down constantly as the trees are worth a lot of money. In the last i think 5 years rainfall has fallen 120% due to de forestation! Loggers they should be stopped!! its atrocious!
2007-09-04 12:10:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The life in the water, the cutting down of the forests so there are no more trees to provide shelter and/or wind resistence from the elemants. Please cite my name and where you found this information if you plan on using what I wrote here in your paper. Thank you.
2007-09-04 11:56:15
·
answer #8
·
answered by c s 3
·
0⤊
1⤋