Suppose I am a defense attorney--I am NOT--arguing for an underdeveloped old-growth tropical rain forest and a coral reef from tumultuous destruction by development. If I could only save ONE, it would be the coral reef. (My instructor said something along the lines of: "The destruction of our marine aquatic zones is much more diasterious than the obliteration of our rain forests. . ." Of course, either scenario is very __________insert devastatingly negative adj. here__________ for the planet.) My question is: Why would the destruction of marine biomes/marine life zones be more detrimental? Thanks for any replies.