The article is completely misleading, it's not forest fires that have gone down, it's fires in general[1]. In this case, urbanization has caused less fires set

The article is completely misleading, it's not forest fires that have gone down, it's fires in general[1]. In this case, urbanization has caused less fires set for agricultural purposes, particularly in savanna regions. What you do is set a fire to get rid of all the shrubs. Afterwards, grass quickly grows, supporting grazing animals. It's been done for thousands of years. This kind of fire also occurs naturally and is actually healthy for the ecosystem. It's funny how the article uses this development that is actually negative (at least for the local flora/fauna) and spins it into a positive. Most people read it as "forest fires have gone down", when the opposite is true[2]. [1] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/90493/researchers-detect-a-global-drop-in-fires https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/90493/researchers-d... [2] https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-global-warming-has-increased-us-wildfires https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-global-warming-has...