While I am very happy with this, I would like to add some context for India specifically.
To put it briefly, our current govt is not climate friendly, and I can say this without further reading, but our forest land has not increased, what has been done is clever redefinition of word forest itself.
Primarily, what would you consider to be true forest is given to big empires in name of development, and as a “eco tax” money is taken for planting elsewhere (which may have completely different bio-geography).
secondly, what would you define as sparse, or less dense forest, or just call them grasslands is also being labeled as forests now. this is done by lowering the required amount of trees per unit area in definition. essentially clever accounting.
Now, if the numbers are by some independent organisation, using satellite data or something, I would trust it and be happy, but if it is aggregating what the nations tell, then I do not trust it.
Very good point. Another issue, at least in my country, is planted forest. Of course it is better to plant forest than turning it into farmland but basically all forests in Sweden are planted and the planted forest is cut down with 70-80 years interval. The planted forest is less diverse than an untouched forest would be and it is hurting the wildlife during the first years after being cut down.
that is a good point. I partially touched on it in my comment, but one of the thing happenning is they are clearing forest in one of our tropical islands, and “reflacing equivalent land” in a temprate only partially forested land. think after giving a full stab wound and adding a temporary bandage on to it. EVen if I believe your planting efforts puts in equal trees, you uprooted a tropical forest with rich flora and fauna, with a place which has no wildlife other than a few monkeys and some other common animals
While I am very happy with this, I would like to add some context for India specifically.
To put it briefly, our current govt is not climate friendly, and I can say this without further reading, but our forest land has not increased, what has been done is clever redefinition of word forest itself.
Primarily, what would you consider to be true forest is given to big empires in name of development, and as a “eco tax” money is taken for planting elsewhere (which may have completely different bio-geography).
secondly, what would you define as sparse, or less dense forest, or just call them grasslands is also being labeled as forests now. this is done by lowering the required amount of trees per unit area in definition. essentially clever accounting.
Now, if the numbers are by some independent organisation, using satellite data or something, I would trust it and be happy, but if it is aggregating what the nations tell, then I do not trust it.
Very good point. Another issue, at least in my country, is planted forest. Of course it is better to plant forest than turning it into farmland but basically all forests in Sweden are planted and the planted forest is cut down with 70-80 years interval. The planted forest is less diverse than an untouched forest would be and it is hurting the wildlife during the first years after being cut down.
that is a good point. I partially touched on it in my comment, but one of the thing happenning is they are clearing forest in one of our tropical islands, and “reflacing equivalent land” in a temprate only partially forested land. think after giving a full stab wound and adding a temporary bandage on to it. EVen if I believe your planting efforts puts in equal trees, you uprooted a tropical forest with rich flora and fauna, with a place which has no wildlife other than a few monkeys and some other common animals