Forest and the Assumptions
I am tired with another misleading assumption. I think I need to built separate tag to describe this situation.
First, open any paper, see the introduction part. We fill find some highlight or opening statement that is exaggerate as something big. For example in UK, 17% of croppable land is to grow rapeseed. This statement by simple search is true, half of croppable land is to grow wheat.
In another example, Indonesia for example, its Forest is around 111 million ha, the seoncd comes for Plantation which around 13 mil ha, and Wetland around 8 mil ha. But in Indonesia, the forest size is decreasing rapidly. So number of forest size is decreasing every years.
But making a centralized policy from statistical number is difficult. For example, we can say that majority of rice production is from Java. But in the other side, we can say that the majority of palm oil production is from Sumatra / Kalimantan.
Further we also can make claim, that palm oil productity (production per land size) is the biggest compare with other oil based plantation.
Another sample is the when claiming how big forest, we can use tropical forest categorization. With tropical forest categorization, Indonesia with Brazil has 35% share of world tropical forest. And further we can say that deforestation is contributed to 6-17% CO2