Or somewhere with a comparative advantage in greenhouse heating, like Turkey with its geothermal greenhouses where, along with Morocco and Almeria, many of Europe's winter tomatoes are grown.

Can I interest you in a version of the thing where all of the physical controls have been replaced by a touchscreen of quality so low it beggars belief?

So that's the truth of it. Australia never adopted a 10% crown cover threshold, but did find over 100 million ha of new forest cover when they adjusted their definition of forest prior to the FRA 2000. I am one step closer to finding the best answers I can to my proliferating questions.

The relevant NFI publication is the SOFR 1998. In it we learn that the crown cover threshold dropped from 50% to 20%, adding 112 million ha of forest, and the height min dropped from 5 m (FAO & NFPS) to 2 m, adding nearly 12 million ha of mallee forest. www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/fores...

By 1995, Australia had adopted the National Forest Policy Statement, which had an incomplete definition of forest that used a 30% threshold. This was not used, as the National Forest Inventory (that's an institution) completed the definition so that the threshold was 20%.

The TBFRA publication is unclear. It states the Australian crown cover and height thresholds correctly, attributes the massive new area of forest cover to the adoption of these thresholds, but does not explain what the changes were. Time to check Australia's own documentation.

We might consider checking the FAO's source for the claim it makes in the FRA. This was before the data was organized into individual country reports, so in this case the source is the UN-ECE/FAO TBFRA 2000. unece.org/forests/temp...

To me these errors aren't tedious arcana, they're obstacles.

I'm just a simple man who wants answers to the kinds of questions toddlers formulate. ◦ How much woods is there? ◦ Where is it? ◦ How much woods was there when you were a kid? ◦ What happens there?

This is a fabrication! Australia *still* uses a crown cover threshold of 20%. The FAO cannot be trusted to describe the data it aggregates. Australia did report over 100 million ha of additional forest cover, but the FAO hallucinated a reason why.