|
|
|
|
|
|
by mistersquid
2488 days ago
|
|
|
Not a downvoter, but my guess is that despite the article (by your description) being concerned about the "world-wide situation" it actually misrepresents what is implied by the word "global" headline. (Connotation, not denotation). More specifically, "world-wide situation" and "global" appear to mean the number/size of fires, a quantitative measure versus a more "holistic" meaning of the world "global" (in the sense of world-wide significance or relevance). In other words, downvoters may be interpreting what you call the "world-wide situation" as a misleading representation of the relevant context for understanding fires. World-wide, people are concerned about the Amazon rain forest burning and a headline about fires globally declining seems to be in bad faith when the article goes on to explain that part of the decline is because forests are being converted into cities insusceptible to forest fires. EDIT: change "susceptible to insusceptible. |
|
|
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.