Should Governments Prohibit Logging

Authors Avatar

Should Governments Prohibit Logging?

Logging is the process in which trees are cut down for forest management and timber. This process has shrunk many forests around the world and is continuing and is still continuing to do so. Governments consider logging to be a good thing because they can sell the timber and wood to boost their country’s economy whereas environmentalists consider logging to be a bad thing because it endangers many species and can aggravate global warming. Logging is not the same as deforestation. Logging is the main cause of deforestation. Deforestation can happen in other ways such as forest fires besides logging.

When governments owe banks a huge amount of money, they have to exploit the country’s natural resources to pay for the national debt and for their own development. Tropical hardwoods are a resource which is in high demand around the world. Brazil owes the World Bank about US$100 billion. The world demands for US$ 8 billion of tropical hardwoods and in order to pay the debt, Brazil sells their tropical hardwood which is obtained by commercial logging. Also commercial logging is caused by population increase. As the population of a country increases, its demand for wood also increases and thus logging is carried out to obtain the wood.

Join now!

There are many types of logging. The first type is tree-length logging. This process involves the felling, topping, and delimbing of trees at the stump. The second type is full-tree logging. Trees are felled and transported to the roadside with top and limbs intact. Finally, the last type is cut-to-length logging. Big trees are felled, delimbed, bucked, and sorted (pulpwood, sawlog, etc.) at the stump area, leaving limbs and tops in the forest.

In developing countries, there is a belief that the amount of logging is done is proportional to how developed it is. For example, if logging was not carried ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

Despite its shortcomings, the response is sophisticated and there are no noticeable errors within it. The candidate could now consider using hyphens and semi-colons to give the essay greater ‘polish’. Another minor point, paragraphs should rarely be as short as two, three and four lines in professional essays such as this. However, this candidate can clearly write to a high standard.

This response could benefit from use of discourse markers to guide the reader through the essay. For example, introduce new paragraphs with ‘this leads on to…’ or ‘by contrast with the earlier point…’ This technique would compensate somewhat for what is essentially a Wikipedia/textbook-style response and help maintain a level of debate throughout. The candidate focuses too much upon scientific points instead of commenting upon ethical implications such as the employment opportunities for disadvantaged people. This is referred to in paragraph five yet what should be a key catalyst for debate is given little over three lines which seem inappropriate given the factual detail preceding it.

The response is balanced, considering both points of view until reaching an informed judgement in the conclusion. Defining the term ‘logging’ and summarising the opposing points of view is achieved within the introduction. However, this response reads far more like a geography essay than it does an English language essay on account of the superfluous scientific detail exhibited. Paragraph three offers a description of “tree-length logging”, “full-tree logging” and “cut-to-length logging”, none of which are relevant to the question as to whether governments should prohibit logging, unless these have varying ethical implications which is not suggested by the candidate. A ‘less is more’ mentality would improve the focus of this response.