Claim: Plants aren't absorbing carbon anymore

Question

Guardian article excerpt (claim bolded): 

This activity is one of thousands of natural processes that regulate the Earth’s climate. Together, the planet’s oceans, forests, soils and other natural carbon sinks absorb about half of all human emissions.

But as the Earth heats up, scientists are increasingly concerned that those crucial processes are breaking down.

In 2023, the hottest year ever recorded, preliminary findings by an international team of researchers show the amount of carbon absorbed by land has temporarily collapsed. The final result was that forest, plants and soil – as a net category – absorbed almost no carbon.

Answer 1

This claim appears to be true, but the title of the article is exaggerated. The Guardian cites many credible sources to support their article such as NASA, nature.com, and the Global Carbon Budget. The claim that plants are absorbing significantly less carbon in 2023 than former years was first made by a team of scholars. In their report, they reference the Global Carbon Budget, carbonmoniter.org, and scholarly websites funded by the government. NASA also wrote their own article in 2020 claiming that "Land ecosystems are becoming less efficient at absorbing carbon dioxide." This claim supports that this problem could have continued to get worse up in to 2023 when the more recent study was done. Overall, it seems that the Guardian article has accurate information, but the title is exaggerated for shock value.

The link to the study report:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.12447

& the link to the 2020 NASA article:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3057/land-ecosystems-are-becoming-less-efficient-at-absorbing-carbon-dioxide/

Answer 2

After reading through the scholarly article and research that this article was based off of I came to the conclusion that it was in fact true. The scholarly article laid out all the numbers pertaining to carbon absorption and the correlation it has had to climate change in the past few years and everything that was restated in the article proved to have been thoroughly researched and experimentally verified. This is the link for the scholarly article if you need verification: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.12447

Answer 3

The article by The Guardian "Trees and land absorbed almost no CO2 last year. Is nature's carbon sink failing?" proves that the claim, "Plants aren't absorbing carbon" is indeed true. The author, Patrick Greenfield focuses on biodiversity and the environment and uses credible research institutions to back up his case. To further prove this case, the article "Land-the planet's carbon sink" by the United Nations concerns over this issue and goes into details of the land's carbon sink and what may cause this issue. This proves that this claim is true and accurate as there are multiple sources that is able to support this.

Comments

Do you have a source link for "Land-the planet's carbon sink" article? Always include source links for everything you cite. Thanks!

Answer 4

The claim of this article-while the claim itself exaggerated--is indeed true. The article talks of the precarious state of ecosystem and our planet's natural ability to rid itself of carbon as the frequency of deforestation, wildfires, and global warming increase and affect our atmosphere. The article says there has been a temporary breakdown of the carbon sink on earth. This is where the title of the claim seems slightly misleading--as the title would lead one to believe that the damage to the carbon sink is irreparable--however, there is real veracity in the fact that our planet's natural processes that help rid of the carbon we produce will not be able to cope with the pollution and destruction we lay onto the planet on a regular basis. For all their claims regarding the carbon sink and all the data they cite within the article, there is a scientific report or article linked and cited, which when clicked takes you directly to the study--opening at the abstract. All the studies directly correspond with the evidence cited, whether it be about the zoo plankton or domestic statistics. There is a note at the end of the article that it was amended recently because a photo was incorrectly cited. However, overall their evidence all seems to be supported and have sufficient explanations. In addition, I found a separate report that shares similar information and findings regarding the temporary break in the carbon sink, and how our damage to the Earth regarding deforestation and such could exacerbate the issue. Here is the link:

https://research.fs.usda.gov/nrs/products/rooted-research/enduring-world-forest-carbon-sink-key-findings-and-policy-implications