Really? I can't imagine it's very big compared to agriculture, but maybe that's my midwestern bias? Do you have any figures handy (specifically for commercial timber rather than timber for other purposes e.g., hunting)?
> Additionally timber likes to make claims like "we plant 2 trees for every 1 harvested." What they don't tell you is that half the trees won't make it to the next clear, and often smaller/weaker/sick trees are culled before a full clear to make room for better ones to grow.
That sounds pretty slimy, but the headline is that there are more trees. If timber is driving it, I would think the bigger concern would be over the homogeneity of the trees and the incumbent ecosystem damage?
Lastly, I would guess (perhaps wrongly) that palm oil and banana plantations are driving the inorganic growth (I haven't yet read the article--shame on me, etc--so perhaps I'm speculating unnecessarily)