FALSE: “Emissions from tropical deforestation alone is now estimated to be greater than emissions for the global transportation sector.” FALSE – Nowhere Near. The False statement is another example of environmental radicals spreading false information to support their political agenda:

“It is standard for groups like World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) to say that deforestation contributes 20 per cent of global emissions, but it’s closer to 5 percent as shown in our research report,” said Alan Oxley, Chairman of World Growth.” (See: “World Growth says deforestation numbers wildly exaggerated” – Biofuels Digest.)

In the Amazon, deforestation is caused by lumbering, cattle ranching, and subsistence farming. Up to 70% of the land where the big timber is cut – is not used for anything for years afterwards. And what’s left, the limbs and tops, along with the smaller trees that are still alive – are not burned. This is simply a hit and run for the big timber. If you automatically assume that all deforestation results in burning and emissions, your estimates will be way off.

Also, what’s left behind, the smaller trees and the fast growing underbrush and saplings will still continue to sequester CO2. So there are adjustments to make. You can’t get that information by watching satellite images and playing with fancy computer modeling. You need to be on the ground tracking the use of the land – Observing how and why the deforestation occurred: Was there burning or not - after the big timber was taken? What happened to the smaller trees and underbrush? How long did the land go unused? What came in afterwards, and when did that occur? Etc…Then you will have accurate data on deforestation.

In Indonesia, you also have a lumber industry, but deforestation is different. You don’t have a major cattle industry like you do in Brazil. Instead, you have a major paper pulp and printing industry and a major palm oil industry. So land there is totally clear-cut - First for the big timber. Then the smaller trees for paper pulp, and then used for palm-oil plantations. Up to 70% of the palm oil is used for human food consumption, not biofuel.

Furthermore, where do you draw the line? European environmentalists are squawking about deforestation in the Amazon and in Indonesia, after their ancestors destroyed 80% of their own forests in Europe. And in the U.S., we allow clear-cutting for urban sprawl, interstate highways, and lumber and pulpwood, etc…

Also, a lot of us are eating the meat and using the lumber, oil, paper and other products that are being produced on deforested land.

Very cool.

This would be useful for carbon credits verification.

Deforestation is a globally significant contributor to carbon emission and the loss of carbon sink over a millennial timescale.

But the ignorant will never understand how the world really works with their short attention span and reliance of regurgitated baby food designed for the masses to benefit the few.

Some local councils are using this type to check backyard pool regulations are met.
As the regulations have all but eliminated backyard drownings, the deaths that occur are now from faulty locks or various 'single cause' accidents.

This leads to claims of intrusive monitoring as there are "no deaths from unregulated pool fencing"

Others will see that the regulations are working and that a sattelite picture is less intrusive than a physical inspection.

Much harder to injure threaten shoot etc a satellite that is spying on your backyard or forest.
Inspectors may be risking their lives in similar circumstances.

A percentage of forest carbon sequesters year on year over eons via accelerated deposition to both shallows and deep undersea sinks. That value is lost compounding year on year to deforestation.
Forests lost to human activity could well be the large majority of deforested areas.
As Henry points out, I just prefer to see this on a geological time frame.

It would be impossible to accurately state the effect from humans activity over the critical last 10,000years as it cannot be tested.

Many practical observations point at a likely very high percentage lost this way.

By comparison fuel burning recovers through the carbon cycle, over time.

This means that one number set compounds (towards infinity) the other reduces (eventually).

Having been to Mount St. Helens, I call bullshit on Henry Gibson.  The natural areas are reforesting, just slowly; they reforested after every eruption before humans were there, after all.  The intensively-managed areas run by Weyerhauser and the like are growing more trees faster, true, but that's what happens when you run a farm.