Indeed. Diversity and type are rather important. Species that provide habitat or food and are native to local ecosystems, or largely ornamental or non native plants etc? A change like this wether desirable or beneficial can signal other factors.
But a larger question concerns the data.
“Green vegetation” is a colloquialism, not a strictly scientific category. It can simply mean plants that look green, or it can mean plants which have chlorophyll as opposed to parasitic plants or, where classified as plants- fungi.
But context is missing. For example- most food crops are “green vegetation” and as such, over 30 years, a global average of 13% increase could be accounted for in whole or part by industrial farming yield increases.
Due to their nature these crops rarely support local ecosystems or long term healthy ecosystems as generally we specifically poison and upkeep comercial crops to eliminate life forms from using them as habitats or food sources, and they are often harvested at regular intervals.
So is this wild crops? Of an average of 13% growth- where is that growth? Is it 1% in most of the world and 50%, 200% etc. here and there to equal an average of 13% global “green vegetation”? Because when it comes to weather and local ecosystems etc. a net global increase doesn’t have the impact of a local increase.
Many “man made” examples of “green vegetation” that could contribute to an increase are actually likely not something to celebrate. Turning deserts into suburbs with manicured lawns for example is generally not great overall as it increases demand on scarce water resources and disrupts local habitats and potentially contributes to sprawl and transportation related pollution as goods and other traffic tends to increase due to often remote proximity to commerce centers and employment opportunity or recreation.
“In 2023 scientists studied 60 years of data and found that fleep Florps had returned to pre Nixon administration levels!”
Wow. And that means exactly nothing to any sane person reading this because you don’t even know what a fleep florp is most likely and there is no context or information to indicate wether that is a good thing or a bad thing.
But a larger question concerns the data.
“Green vegetation” is a colloquialism, not a strictly scientific category. It can simply mean plants that look green, or it can mean plants which have chlorophyll as opposed to parasitic plants or, where classified as plants- fungi.
But context is missing. For example- most food crops are “green vegetation” and as such, over 30 years, a global average of 13% increase could be accounted for in whole or part by industrial farming yield increases.
So is this wild crops? Of an average of 13% growth- where is that growth? Is it 1% in most of the world and 50%, 200% etc. here and there to equal an average of 13% global “green vegetation”? Because when it comes to weather and local ecosystems etc. a net global increase doesn’t have the impact of a local increase.
Wow. And that means exactly nothing to any sane person reading this because you don’t even know what a fleep florp is most likely and there is no context or information to indicate wether that is a good thing or a bad thing.