I honestly can't tell if you're from Brazil, trolling, or not understanding the data.

Brazil has destroyed more than 3x the forest than the next-highest country, and the forest it's destroying is considered the most ecologically important. It doesn't matter how much is still standing. The rate at which it's being destroyed tells us which country's behavior needs to change.

This is similar to burning fossil fuels. We don't say, "Look at all the oil the US hasn't burned yet!" We say, "The US is the largest consumer of oil." We don't care about the damage they could do but haven't done yet. We care about the damage that's happening.

Now as it turns out, Brazil has already destroyed enough of the Amazon that it's now a carbon emitter rather than a carbon sink[1], so the task is not just to stop Brazil from destroying the Amazon, but actually to reforest it over time, which is even more challenging.

1. https://research.noaa.gov/2021/07/14/deforestation-warming-f...

> Brazil has destroyed more than 3x the forest than the next-highest country

And yet, the rate of destruction is well within the average for every country (what the graph measures).

I can only conclude that you don't perceive a difference between percentages and absolute values and there is no point trying to find common ground here.