> the article goes on to explain that part of the decline is because forests are being converted into cities susceptible to forest fires.
That isn't what it says at all. It says that the amount of forest being burned to create farms (deliberately) is going down because the farms are more economically productive.
From the article.
> That's because the amount of land being converted into ranches and farms has been going down, not up, and because more of it is being done with machines than with fire.
> For the last 35 years, the world has been re-foresting, meaning new tree growth has exceeded deforestation. The area of the Earth covered with forest has increased by an area the size of Texas and Alaska combined.
I beg to differ. Quoting from the article (and with all due respect):
> And against the picture painted by celebrities and the mainstream media that fires around the world are caused by economic growth, the truth is the opposite: the amount of land being burned is declining thanks to development, including urbanization.
That isn't what it says at all. It says that the amount of forest being burned to create farms (deliberately) is going down because the farms are more economically productive.
From the article.
> That's because the amount of land being converted into ranches and farms has been going down, not up, and because more of it is being done with machines than with fire.
> For the last 35 years, the world has been re-foresting, meaning new tree growth has exceeded deforestation. The area of the Earth covered with forest has increased by an area the size of Texas and Alaska combined.