[wickedwiesel]

Yes, India and China may be "greener". But, as the referenced article [0] states: The greening in China is from forests (42%) and croplands (32%), but in India is mostly from croplands (82%) with minor contribution from forests (4.4%). Main driver for greening according to the authors is an increase in food production.

It is not re-forestation as the Forbes' author wants readers to think: Both China and India went through phases of large scale deforestation in the 1970s and 80s, clearing old growth forests for urban development, farming and agriculture. However, it is clear that when presented with a problem, humans are incredibly adept at finding a solution.

The hubris!

This means we actually observe net deforestation, globally, but also in China [1] and India [2] if you look at tree coverage indicators from Global Forest Watch. Global Forest Watch also uses satellite images, from a very similar timeline, so it should be comparable and raise serious doubts on the positive message of the Forbes article. To preserve biodiversity and combat climate change, we need more forests, not just more "green" land.

[0] Nature article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7

[1] China Forest Watch map: http://bit.ly/2HGOXtI

[2] India Forest Watch map: http://bit.ly/2qT4e0g

(edits to improve formatting)

[rainhacker]

A valid critique of the article. Though, to get a well-rounded view on this matter, take into account the per capita carbon footprints[1] also - which tells a different story than mainstream media:

Saudi Arabia: 16.85

United States: 15.53

Australia: 15.83

China: 6.59

India: 1.58

[1] https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/sc...