I don't think everything is the size of France. France is rather large (547,030 sq km), so using it as a measurement of size would make accurate measurement very difficult. In fact France is somewhere in between Texas (696,241 sq km) and California (410,000 sq km). Not quite as big as Texas but rather larger than California. It being larger than California is handy, because France is fat and California is long and thin and it would hurt the brain a lot if one had to start thinking "wow, and they're like the same size. No way! Way!" One could get very technical about the whole thing and say that France = California + Alabama (135,765 km sq), but this would be silly and inadvisable.
The question of Rhode Island is easily answered. It is 4,005 sq km. This means that Americans are measuring on a smaller scale than the British, because Wales is over five times the size of Rhode Island at 20,779 sq km. For Americans to match "An area the size of Wales has been lost from the rainforest" they would have to say "An area five times the size of Rhode Island has been lost...blah" This might appeal to their "Whoa, that must be huge !" sensibilities, but then again it's unlikely that they'd be paying much attention to areas of rainforest falling off the face of the planet because (a) they might be the ones losing it for the sake of a hamburger and (b) there is no global warming. Period. Got that!
However, if they wanted to keep in line with British measurements they could adopt the Vermont scale. Vermont is slightly larger than Wales (and has better skiing) at 24,923 sq km, but as we already know that nature tends toward the size of Wales, I'm sure that an extra 4,144 sq km here or there wouldn’t make that much difference. One might ask why not the English scale or the Scottish scale? I would answer -- they are too large for fiddly measurements. Surely better to say the size of Wales than roughly one sixth the size of England (130,395 sq km) (leading to cries of ‘that’s not much is it’) or a quarter of the size of Scotland (78.782 sq km) (leading to similar bemusement). (For fans of the US/UK cross over, England = Louisiana (134,382) , Scotland = South Carolina (82,965 sq km), with the proviso that both states are a little larger than their British counterparts. No surprise there).'What of Northern Ireland!', I don’t hear you cry. Well Northern Ireland at 13,843 sq km might seem like the ideal measurement. Neither too large or too small, but as we have already noted, nature tends toward the Taff and therefore small and imperfectly formed as it is, N. Ireland is ruled out. (Connecticut (14,371 sq km) btw)
And then we have something that the US doesn’t; the Isle of Wight. At 380 sq km, one has to acknowledge its diminutiveness, but that’s all the space needed to have all the world’s population standing side by side, and one imagines back to back and front to back and back to…etc. Probably not as comfortably as if they did it on Rhode Island, but that’s hardly the point.So there we have it. Nature abhors a vacuum, but is clearly rather fond of Wales, and probably has a passing fancy for Vermont too. Despite attempts to the contrary, it’s clear that she is only playing with Rhode Island’s feelings and has yet to be seduced by Gallic Charms. She allegedly told Alaska to go fuck itself a couple of millennia ago and it has been lost in an icy strop ever since.