[kuldeepk]

Correct me if i'm wrong but this data seem to put deforestation as benign. Wouldn't continued trend of deforestation make effect of GHS emissions worse? More that temperature changes shouldn't we worried about oxygen health of the planet?

[scatters]

I think they're just including the albedo effect of deforestation in that graph, not the GHG effect of burning and decaying trees. (Cropland is usually lighter coloured than forest, so reflects more light and heat, giving a cooling effect.)

Oxygen is not a worry in any realistic scenario. Crops still photosynthesize, and in any case most of our oxygen comes from marine phytoplankton. CO2 is measured in parts per million (currently around 400ppm), oxygen is around 20%, so CO2 would reach toxic levels (1%) long before any oxygen shortage became a problem.

[kuldeepk]

ha! thanks for clarifying, then I presume they are also not counting the decrease in CO2 absorption due to deforestation. I think that that bit of their section is dangerous by labeling it "is it deforestation? No!". Interpretation for avg readers: Let's continue with it!

Taking this from - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/business/energy-environme...

> Forest loss is detrimental to the earth’s climate. The clearing of woodlands and the fires that accompany it generate one-tenth of all global warming emissions, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, making the loss of forests one of the biggest single contributors to climate change.