This is a common pattern of comments you'll see on almost any climate post: Person 1 - locally we (majorly developed nation) are improving resource X! Person

This is a common pattern of comments you'll see on almost any climate post: Person 1 - locally we (majorly developed nation) are improving resource X! Person 2 - ... but you're not accounting for exporting/externalizing demands for resource X that mask true usage by us. Person 1 - ah but XYZ group shows that even if you account for this (which is really quite tricky to account for accurately) then everything is fine and we are doing better. But the ultimate test of whether or not we're really improving anything always has to be a global view. Local resource improvement is meaningless and accounting for exporting of consumption/production etc is very tricky to account for unless you simply look at global trends. And globally percent of forest area has been in steady decline[1]. I have no doubt some think tank has written a report showing that "even if we account for europe's exportation of plant biomass needs, things are still doing better" but all that really matters is always the global trend. [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS?