Global carbon dioxide removal totals 2 billion tons per year: report

If humans stopped breathing so much, there wouldn't be so much carbon dioxide. But it is better to plant more trees to consume the carbon dioxide and make oxygen for humans to breathe.

Even before the Russian sanctions oil and LNG traveled all around the world.

Interesting that this story broke on the same day.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe

Basically it says actions claiming to offset carbon emissions are not actually reducing them. They are "saving" forests that are not at risk of being chopped down anyway. Meaningful action would be protecting forest at actual risk or replanting.

Just think about the ability of the world's forests to absorb even more CO2 if goobers would stop clearing them for short-term economic gain?

Invest in trees.

our planet is designed for high levels of CO2. The earth right now is actually craving for it. Plants and trees die without it. That is real science and not the hoax science they would like people to believe.

@Temyong: Correct. What will these people do when the earth starts cooling (as it surely will) and the spectre of a new Ice Age starts haunting humanity? If anything, we need more CO2 in the atmosphere: we are now at historic lows.

The CO2 fertilization effect (increase in plant productivity from elevated CO2) already stopped a long time ago. Unless you have some evidence no one knows of.

our planet is designed for high levels of CO2. The earth right now is actually craving for it. Plants and trees die without it. That is real science and not the hoax science they would like people to believe.

To question man-made global warming or climate change in the year 2023 is to self-identify as a moron.

If anything, we need more CO2 in the atmosphere: we are now at historic lows.

Historic highs or historic lows? I guess it depends on the timescale you use. Much lower than 50 million years ago - can you remember those times? But at the highest point over the last million years or so, a period during which modern humans emerged.

A direct quote from the link you shared: "The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”"

I was shocked to find just how beneficial for plants all the CO2 is: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/

The U.S. nonprofit Global Energy Monitor reports that 200 new, coal-fired power stations are currently under construction in Asia, including 95 in China, 28 in India, and 23 in Indonesia.

The CO2 that will be discharged into the atmosphere by the new coal-fired power plants in Asia far outstrips the amount being removed from the atmosphere globally by human efforts.

Climate denies are out. I'll follow what real climate science and scientists say over these keyboard cowboys. The data is overwhelming. Exxon's research knew of the greenhouse issues in the 1980s, but decided to downplay what their own scientists predicted in a way similar to the cigarette makers claimed they didn't know cancer was caused by smoking.

Perhaps 5 yrs ago, I saw a study that 1T more trees would be the most cost effective way to fight CO₂. Alas, trees don't get new investors trying to earn money by filling a world need. Just 6 countries need to make a real effort to re-plant their forests. Russia (151 million hectares); USA (103 million); Canada (78 million); Australia (58 million); Brazil (50 million); and China (40 million).

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-will-plant-1-billion-trees-to-combat-climate-change-180980485/

Pity they are doing toss all to stop the rainforests being burned down for farming, strip-mined and logged out.

They did some experiments and found that higher levels of CO2 led to stronger tree/plant growth. All very Gaia. Flora may adapt better than we will.

I don’t care much about these issues, they are out of my control.

I don’t own a car and walk, cycle or use public transport. I keep myself healthy and decent weight so I don’t consume as much as many, it’s my way of helping Mother Earth.

I don’t care much about these issues, they are out of my control.

Its going to affect you whether you think you contribute or not so you really ought to care.

Nemo

Nope, nothing I can do about it except maintain my sensible eco friendly lifestyle, that makes me a healthy person. Less driving and less obesity are two of the best solutions available

They did some experiments and found that higher levels of CO2 led to stronger tree/plant growth. All very Gaia. Flora may adapt better than we will.

We don't need to "save the planet". Earth will be he until the Sun consumes it in about 5B years.

However, insects, animals, and fish are being killed off the last 100 yrs at the most rapid pace since catastrophic events like the asteroid hit the Earth. https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/35605/20220117/6th-mass-extinction-now-happening-study-reveals-current-species-die.htm We are in the 6th mass extinction now.

It is due to humans taking habitat and green house gases causing climate change according to 97% of the experts around the world.

There are always a few "experts" who have little to lose and figure the risk/reward ratio of being in the 3% is worth it to their useless careers ... or so they can get paid for holding the view by other companies paying "experts" to create FUD for the idiots. That doesn't mean they are right.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

In effect, the 3% are like the people standing at the bottom of a crumbling dam, with their eyes closed, saying, "everything is fine" as the cement builds up at their feet. Whereas everyone else standing anywhere can feel and see the crumbling as it happens.

If there is any confusion, the way science works is people create a theory and test that theory in every way they can possibly think up to see if it is true. If a theory fails one or more tests, then part or all of it is flawed and it needs to be adjusted for the new facts ... or thrown out. A new theory will be created and tested. This happens over and over and over. When a theory has stuck for some time, it is still a theory, but has more weight since it becomes more and more likely to be a rule or law, until proven wrong. Einstein's Relativity theories are still theories, but more and more tests are confirming them every year. Same for climate change being caused by humans and green house gases. 97% of working, publishing, active, climatologists think that theory is correct based on all the testing that validates it. There might be a better theory, but it has to encompass all the confirming aspects that human created climate change has already confirmed. That's a big problem for climate change deniers.

Anyway, when entire ecosystems are failing, that isn't good for humans either. As other animals die out, humans will die as well. We all can't relocate to the places on Earth where the climate changes will be good and predicting where those places are will tough. We've found that parts of Alaska were temperate rain forests previously. Not when humans were on Earth, but long before then. When permafrost becomes warm, it turns into swamps. This is happening in Siberia today. Worse, when permafrost melts, it releases more carbon, making the problem worse.