Here’s the problem, the messaging is “confusing”, carbon is not the issue, at least in the North American continent. Estimated CO2 production is less then Estimated CO2 “recovery” from estimated trees. Other greenhouse gases on the other hand is a different story, yet everyone focuses on carbon. Inaccurate messaging is a big problem.
You’re right that methane emissions are a bigger problem than CO2 and they are drastically underestimated.
You’re wrong in dismissing CO2. Regardless of North American emissions, atmospheric CO2 ppm is increasing and we need it to decrease. Afforestation is one of the only reasonable ways to achieve CO2 reduction. Climate modeling also suggests that more forests could have other beneficial effects(increased rain, local temperature stability in shorter heat spikes) in attenuating extreme weather beyond CO2 drawdown.
Here’s the problem, the messaging is “confusing”, carbon is not the issue, at least in the North American continent. Estimated CO2 production is less then Estimated CO2 “recovery” from estimated trees. Other greenhouse gases on the other hand is a different story, yet everyone focuses on carbon. Inaccurate messaging is a big problem.
You’re right and you’re wrong.
You’re right that methane emissions are a bigger problem than CO2 and they are drastically underestimated.
You’re wrong in dismissing CO2. Regardless of North American emissions, atmospheric CO2 ppm is increasing and we need it to decrease. Afforestation is one of the only reasonable ways to achieve CO2 reduction. Climate modeling also suggests that more forests could have other beneficial effects(increased rain, local temperature stability in shorter heat spikes) in attenuating extreme weather beyond CO2 drawdown.