That's not a bad trend, but such data has to be interpreted carefully. Throughout much of the (so-called) developed world, the past several hundred years of growth have seen large amounts of old-growth forests cleared. Replacing those forests, ecologically speaking, will take many human lifespans, and filling the void they once occupied (as well as land that was traditionally not forested and therefore provided different ecosystem services) with human-planned monoculture will do little more than inflate oversimplistic statistics that provide cover for those seeking to avoid taking responsibility for the health of the natural environment.
To be clear, I'm not questioning your intentions, just pointing out that the data you cite isn't (necessarily) as encouraging as a superficial examination might suggest. I'm not an ecologist, but I'd imagine that measuring biodiversity levels, soil health, cleanliness of air + water, etc. would paint a better picture of environmental health than forest cover.
anemoiac|3 years ago
To be clear, I'm not questioning your intentions, just pointing out that the data you cite isn't (necessarily) as encouraging as a superficial examination might suggest. I'm not an ecologist, but I'd imagine that measuring biodiversity levels, soil health, cleanliness of air + water, etc. would paint a better picture of environmental health than forest cover.
mrjangles|3 years ago
tluyben2|3 years ago
david-gpu|3 years ago
According to the world Bank [0], that is not what is happening. Do you have a better source?
[0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS?location...