NASA | A Year in the Life of Earth's CO2

I personally believe that forests provide a net positive in terms of CO2 scrubbing regardless of decay/decomposition. The only evidence I'd offer is a time lapsed NASA video[0] showing CO2 emissions heatmap over time. The areas like the Amazon clear up the CO2 on a daily and seasonal basis. The areas where forests are impossible like the Arctic, it does not. The sun drives the cyclical "heartbeat" effect you see from day to day on the video, where plants using photosynthesis in the day (and macroscopically, the summer) effects the intensity of scrubbing moreso. Also, maybe it is my mind's desire to simplify of all of it, but it was eye opening for me, and seemed obvious upon seeing that video, that forests were the key player in air management globally, and industrialized nations were the main drivers behind CO2 production in the air globally. [0]: [this video]

To your sequestration comment. No one is saying don't plant trees. Fuck yeah, plant all the trees! But that won't wont be enough. Sequestration will get better, but one of the big things it helps with is locality. CO2 isn't homogenously spread across the globe. It also doesn't spread very well. Concentrations vary drastically over the year and so do plants' ability to capture carbon. Carbon can build up in certain regions. Worse, it can pool where we can't grow trees [0]. Places where we can't get enough water to introduce new populations of trees (without significant carbon costs, defeating the purpose. Also the local ecosystem) Cities. The Arctic. The ocean. I'm all for planting trees (even beyond CO2, I just feel better around trees) but people need to stop making the trees vs sequestration argument. It's trees + sequestration (air and ocean) + promoting corral development + more. (This same argument applies to a lot of things, especially in climate. It's not a "this vs that" argument, it's "this PLUS that". [0] [this video]

Trees alone might not be. However, photosynthesis is the answer. Plants exude sugars and carbohydrates, made from atmospheric CO2, into the soil feeding massive amounts of bacteria and fungi(carbon). The bulk of carbon in the soil comes from plant exudates, not plant matter. As long as this ecosystem is healthy the carbon stays in the soil. When the soil ecosystem is healthy plants are healthier which makes everything up the food chain healthier. The majority of our crop and pasture land soil is dead. The previous year's carbon that was pumped into the soil by plants is released when tilling happens in the spring. We need to stop tilling and grow diverse, more than 8, species wherever we can. Five tenants of soil health [link] NASA CO2 [this video]

This is mostly just political posturing on the part of the Democratic Party, which as far as I can tell is not any more interested in halting US fossil fuel production than the Republican party is. In fact, not a single country with large oil and gas reserves and an active export industry wants to see their revenue collapse due to something like an international ban on the trade in fossil fuels - and this is true regardless of their political ideology, i.e. capitalism vs socialism or authoritarian theocracy or whatever. Venezuela, the United States, Norway, Iran, Russia, Saudi & UAE, etc. all want to keep running their export programs for the next three decades at least. I mean, in the USA the Obama Administration oversaw the fracking boom for eight years and now that's the basis of the LNG exports to Europe. As far as tracking the big polluters, that's more misdirection. Yes, it'd be nice if oil refineries were run tightly enough that they had no local emissions, but those refined products are all going into the fuel tanks of jet planes, ships, trucks, power plants and personal vehicles, from whene they will be combusted to CO2 and injected into the atmosphere, so does it really matter where the emissions take place? This is not rocket science, just basic accounting. The end result is the same, here's a model of the yearly cycle: [this video] If countries had really wanted to slow fossil-fueled global warming, they'd have started a 1% per year replacement program (renewables for