The article asserts that using an international forest protecting fund is really useful for conserving forests from deforestation activities. The professor, however, overthrows this hypothesis and believes that the authors idea of preserving forests from deforestation activities of diverse industries is not plausible. In the following, his explanations, used to shed light on this convoluted problem, will be discussed thoroughly.
First of all, the passage claims that this budget can be used for agricultural issues which will decrease logging practices. The lecturer, on the other hand, rejects this notion, mainly because he thinks agricultural activities are also deemed destructive. As population is growing, farmers are required to promote their harvesting practices by using state-of-the-art technologies and materials. The utilization of fertilizers and pesticides, for instance, will have a negative impact on the environment as they pollute runoffs and water in the region. Therefore, this inclination will destroy forests at a higher rate in comparison with logging.
Secondly, the essay upholds that this fund can be used for developing local economies of villagers. The teacher insists that this money is inadequate and believes that dispersing this fund is not practical since it finally goes to forests' owners neither the governments nor the residents. There is no guarantee that this fund will be used for forest protecting practices insomuch as this money may not end up for forset dwellers. Thus, people may still stick to deforestation activities in order to earn something for their living.
Tertiary, the reading states that this money can be used to encourage local people to sustain biodiversity of the forests as well as their species. The educator refutes this belief since he claims that people will eventually use this money to plant commercial trees. In the long term, this action will not promote the biodiversity of jungles.
The article asserts that using an international
forest
protecting
fund
is
really
useful for conserving
forests
from deforestation
activities
. The professor,
however
, overthrows this hypothesis and believes that the
authors
idea
of preserving
forests
from deforestation
activities
of diverse industries is not plausible. In the following, his explanations,
used
to shed light on this convoluted problem, will
be discussed
thoroughly
.
First of all
, the passage claims that this budget can be
used
for agricultural issues which will decrease logging practices. The lecturer,
on the other hand
, rejects this notion,
mainly
because
he
thinks
agricultural
activities
are
also
deemed destructive. As population is growing, farmers
are required
to promote their harvesting practices by using state-of-the-art technologies and materials. The utilization of fertilizers and pesticides,
for instance
, will have a
negative
impact on the environment as they pollute runoffs and water in the region.
Therefore
, this inclination will
destroy
forests
at a higher rate
in comparison
with logging.
Secondly
, the essay upholds that this
fund
can be
used
for developing local economies of villagers. The teacher insists that this
money
is inadequate and believes that dispersing this
fund
is not practical since it
finally
goes to forests' owners neither the
governments
nor the residents. There is no guarantee that this
fund
will be
used
for
forest
protecting practices insomuch as this
money
may not
end
up for
forset
dwellers.
Thus
,
people
may
still
stick to deforestation
activities
in order to earn something for their living.
Tertiary, the reading states that this
money
can be
used
to encourage local
people
to sustain biodiversity of the
forests
as well
as their species. The educator refutes this belief since he claims that
people
will
eventually
use
this
money
to plant commercial trees. In the long term, this action will not promote the biodiversity of jungles.