We do not treat all biomes equally! There is a global focus/preference for forests. We all learned about how the rainforests are the lungs of the earth and their incredible biodiversity in school, and there are lots of pledges to stop deforestation, but they are not the only ecosystems that are extremely threatened. The lecturer on this topic was a dry tropical forest researcher, so he used that as a counterpoint. Dry tropical forests are also found in the tropics like Brazil, but experience a wet and dry season vs. the total wet of the rainforest biome, leading to a very different look and a very different set of wildlife. They actually have more plant species present and endemic than rainforests, but are far less protected. 80% of the Amazonian rainforest is intact, but <10% of the dry forest is, and only 50% of the Brazilian savannahs are. Because we have a global focus on saving the rainforests, the clearing of natural land for farmland (driven by demand for beef) is being moved from the forests to the savannah and dry forest. There’s also this idea floating around even in academia that to fight climate change we should just plant trees everywhere, but that’s also problematic because there are lots of ecosystems that aren’t tree-based (that still sequester plenty of carbon, such as peatlands and prairies).

Why are we so obsessed with the rainforest? This professor asserted it was partly to do with colonialism – the British Empire was built on deforestation. Forests were extremely valuable for their lumber, which was used to build ships for the Royal Navy to maintain and expand British power. Since they had already deforested their little island, the colonies were their source of lumber (which is why colonialism is at the root of climate change). Thus, we in the West have inherited this view that forests are more valuable than other biomes. I’m sure there’s more to it but I think that’s an interesting backstory.