i see. let's read on.
>What increased by 7% in 2019 are the fires of dry scrub and trees cut down for cattle ranching as a strategy to gain ownership of land.
so it appears that fires in the Amazon have indeed increased as a result of intentional deforestation efforts using fire. this undermines the author's prior statement.
>Against the picture painted of an Amazon forest on the verge of disappearing, a full 80% remains standing.
put differently, we've lost 20% of it. we should be battling as fiercely as possible to prevent any further losses and doing whatever we can to reseed the areas which can be recovered.
i'm not a fan of this kind of "debunkery" because it's counterproductive and doesn't debunk much of anything. this crisis is real, whether or not the media has cared about it in prior years. our planet is dying because of our actions. the details are less relevant than the big picture.
finally, i suggest that you look at the titles of the author's other published articles. he appears to be repeatedly arguing heavily in favor for nuclear power while often trying to undermine the prospect of renewable energy sources. i am pro-nuclear power, and agree that many renewables are imperfect. but consider that he has an agenda of some sort which makes him vastly less trustworthy regarding these matters of climate change, because his agenda is in favor of a specific industry (nuclear power) rather than the planet.