This seems likes good news from an environmental standpoint, but its a real shame that rainforest cover is being lost. I loved reading articles/stories about rainforests as crazy evolution-based chemistry labs that are ever engulfed in the world war of insects vs plants vs funghi vs bacteria vs viruses vs animals. Rainforests are home to some pretty amazing chemistry (and potential medicinal products, though I see society moving away from medicines being found in this capacity)
The developed world went through its industrial and agricultural revolutions over 100 years ago, and land use hasn't changed dramatically since then. Developing countries aren't doing anything different; they're just doing it now. Particular examples of this are Brazilian deforestation and Chinese pollution.
Given what we now know about the global impact of these activities, it makes sense that the world pushes back against their development plans. Part of it is "don't make the same mistakes we did," but most of it is "there's a better way," and part of it is a realization that the world collectively needs less pollution and more trees, and since we've already chopped down our trees, we want Brazil to keep theirs for our (global) benefit.
That latter point is selfish. Yes, it's good for the world as a whole, but the cost to Brazil is foregoing the benefits of exploiting their resources the same way other industrialized nations already have. The same applies to China and pollution. They're doing the same thing the US did for much of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The selfish part is denying these countries the right to exploit their land the way that we already have. If the rest of the world wants Brazil to stop chopping down forests, they should pay them for it.
A more ideal solution might be to expand 'national parks' like ideas to a global scale and "purchase" the land that we as a species want to set aside as an investment in the continued stability of our ONLY presently viable planet.
The trouble with an idea like that is that unless there are armed "boots on the ground" actively protecting them, then those areas may just get exploited anyway, regardless of who owns them.
Unless the extra trees are a symptom of a warming climate and increased CO2 levels.
I'd also hazard that having more trees in the north/south, where light levels are less is not a good trade deforestation near the equator. If a tree's job is to turn CO2 into O2, we want more of them where there is the most sunshine.
This is a common misconception. A mature forest does NOT absorb CO2. It stores a bunch of carbon, but is net neutral.
However when you cut down that forest, it turns into wood and a good chunk of that wood tends to turn into CO2 in one way or another in not too many years.
The real "lungs of the world" are the plankton in the ocean. Endlessly absorbing CO2, sinking, and forming mud. Locking away CO2 released by natural sources such as volcanoes.
