You might want to check your facts on that.
From the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ( FAO ) in their Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. Key findings include:
The world’s forest area is decreasing, but the rate of loss has slowed. … due to a reduction in deforestation in some countries, plus increases in forest area in others through afforestation and the natural expansion of forests.
Thus, while overall deforestation continues, this is driven by the continued deforestation of natural forest, while the amount of planted forest is growing. As I briefly alluded to above, including both of these in the same measure may hide more than it reveals, as natural forest is a far richer carbon sink, with much more diversity, whereas planted forest is essentially a crop, with little ecological value.
You are probably referring to this report, which does indeed conclude this, with the caveat:
The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
More recent research, Unexpected reversal of C3 versus C4 grass response to elevated CO2 during a 20-year field experiment) in Science confirms the note of caution, showing that the effects of CO2 on plant growth depend greatly on circumstances, and concluding that:
even the best-supported short-term drivers of plant response to global change might not predict long-term results.
According to the World Resources Institute study in 2018, the primary drivers are agriculture (24%), wildfire (23%), and forestry (26%). No study that I have seen cites tree burning for fuel as a factor.
It’s not as simple as that. The situation in Australia, for example, is far from solved.
Unfortunately, these trends will be undercut by global warming, according to Global Warming and Agriculture: Impact Estimates by Country, a book by Wlliam Cline.
World agriculture faces a serious decline within this century due to global warming unless emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are substantially reduced from their rising path, and developing countries will suffer much steeper declines than high-income countries, according to a new study by a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development and the Peterson Institute. …
Individual developing countries face even larger declines. India, for example, could see a drop of 30 to 40 percent. Some smaller countries suffer what could only be described as an agricultural productivity collapse. Sudan, already wracked by civil war fueled in part by failing rains, is projected to suffer as much as a 56 percent reduction in agricultural production potential; Senegal, a 52 percent fall.
“Bill’s projections are sobering and alone they understate the potential problem,” said Nancy Birdsall, president of the Center for Global Development. “Governments and millions of poor people in developing countries have limited ability to cope with such changes. At least a billion people live in the poorest countries that are likely to be worst hit by this slow-moving crisis. This will be a serious problem for us all.”
Cline said that the productivity losses could be even greater than he has calculated because of more insect pests, severe drought, and scarcity of water for irrigation, changes that are likely to accompany climate change but are not explicitly included in the models he used in the study.
Specifically considering the question of whether technology will offset climate losses, Cline shows that “the pace of the green revolution has slowed, with annual global yield gains falling from 2.8 percent per year in the 1960s and 1970s to 1.6 percent in the past quarter century”. Even without the impacts of global warming, population growth, shrinkage of water supplies, increased cost of oil and other fuels, and other factors will make it hard to increase overall agricultural productivity. And of course, the regions that need the greatest increases are the very same regions that will be hit hardest and soonest by global warming.
As I am writing this, all of us are affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which was ultimately caused by deforestation. We have become so transfixed by our own situation that we sometimes forget that global warming is not waiting for anyone. Right now, over a quarter of Bangladesh is underwater. Meanwhile, according to the NY Times,
Vanuatu is literally sinking into the Pacific. Pastoralists in the Horn of Africa are being pushed to the edge of survival by back-to-back droughts. In the megacity of Mumbai, the rains come in terrifying cloudbursts.
The inequity is striking, no matter which way you slice it. One recent analysis found that the world’s richest 10 percent are responsible for up to 40 percent of global environmental damage, including climate change, while the poorest 10 percent account for less than 5 percent. Another estimated that warming had reduced incomes in the world’s poorest countries by between 17 percent and 30 percent.
The whole article is well worth a read. There is no room for complacency.