Deforestation is a bad thing and figures in some worst cases. Unfortunately, it's hard to imagine how threats could exist, other than "all forests disappear and all things on Earth die as a direct result". (Some people would believe even that, making it a worst case, not a dystopia). It is very strongly rewarded by GDP maximization strategies.
Charcoal and tantallum and shrimp farms are things whose creation often cause deforestation. When they do, this makes the charcoal and tantallum also bad things, as the comprehensive outcome of their production is beyond what is acceptable for a healthy buying infrastructure.
"Policy and market failure alone cannot explain rapid deforestation, concludes Sven Wunder (Centre for Development Research, Copenhagen), and finds that with current technologies, market prices, and disparate stakeholder interests, natural forest uses in Ecuador tend to yield less income than alternative land uses, mainly agro-pastoral. The only effect curb on deforestation, he says, would be payments for global forest benefits as an integral element of conservation incentives on the ground" 
However, there are some activities that can probably be stopped by changes in purchasing patterns. Mangrove forest loss may be one of these. While the list of mangrove deforestation horrors is too long to list here (see this whole book), all the buying criteria has to know is: where is this shrimp from? (Burma, India, Bangaladesh, Cambodia, Thailand and some South American countries have particularly bad records). Was it caught or farmed? All sustainably farmed shrimp (small family operations) stays in the country and is consumed where it is grown. Exported farmed shrimp is always from unsustainable operations that must be shut down.
Other factors like charcoal production, again, and oil and gas exploration, do tremendous damage to these forests, which are critical to survival of inshore fishery (hatchlings live in the roots of the mangroves and shelter from predators there as a critical part of their life-cycle).