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.

Comments

It seems like you spend a lot of time fact checking this and your source is valid enough. At the same time checking other articles your fact is true!

---

Great job finding a corroborating source this is a super interesting phenomenon that I was unaware of

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/

Comments

Great job on a well-researched fact check! Nice job pointing out that the title was exaggerated but the claim that was being made is still true. And nice job finding multiple different sources that proved the claim and quoting them accurately. Nice job!

---

I like that you highlighted the fact that the news title could easily mislead people. I like too that you linked to two outside sources. The charts and diagrams in the arxiv pdf are very helpful in contextualizing the situation and adding depth for the reader. In an article by New Scientist there is a quote that reads, "'It's important to note that this isn't a direct measurement of what has happened,  but instead it's a projection,' he says." This is very important to further emphasize that this can be blown out of proportion as it relates to our current day and time, but could be a problem in the near future.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2386953-plants-find-it-harder-to-absorb-carbon-dioxide-amid-global-warming/

---

You did a great job researching for this fact check. Its interesting that you added that the title of the article was a bit exaggerated and can easily mislead people even thought the claim was still proven to be true.  Looking in to multiple sources was also great as it provides more evidence to the claim and strengthens it.  Especially when you mentioned NASA which has one of the largest roles for studying climate change. Keep up the good work!

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!

---

steven universe

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

Answer 5

The title, “Trees and land absorbed almost no CO2 last year. Is nature’s carbon sink failing?” along with the first sentence of the article is claiming that trees and land are causing a rapid acceleration to global heating due to absorbing barely any CO2. When searching up similar language and claims within the article, such as “As the light disappears, billions of zooplankton, crustaceans and other marine organisms rise to the ocean surface to feed on microscopic algae” I found over 6 websites with the same copy and pasted article as the one we have on our hands, all getting it from The Guardian, which is a common thing for cheap wanna be websites trying to grow. Yet with more research I have found that these small claims like this are true, along with “2023 being the hottest year on record”. When it comes to more complex topics like Tim Lenton, a professor of climate change and Earth system science at Exeter University talking about biosphere responses. I found reliability on Exeter University’s website to back up the articles claims:

https://experts.exeter.ac.uk/19727-tim-lenton

With this being said, this article provides valid evidence from reliable resources to prove the trueness of the claim.

Comments

I liked how you used a university study to back up your claim. It shows the validity in your claim and how this article is true. You quoted a statement that lines up with the claim and helped me understand your fact check.

Answer 6

True but slightly exaggerated.

The Guardian article makes a complying argument with factual data on climate change and carbon sinks to support it. The Climate Portal explains that plants will only absorb carbon slowly and effectively at high carbon dioxide levels. The University of Leeds reports that, in 2023, deforestation caused a 31 percent decrease in the ability of topical forests to absorb carbon. However, the carbon sink capability of temporal forests increased by thirty percent. Similarly, a 2023 global study of climate change reveals that the worldwide net land carbon sink is the weakest it has been since 2003. According to numerous studies and analyzed data, it appears that plants and carbon sinks are struggling to absorb the constantly increasing global emissions of carbon dioxide. While plants are still absorbing carbon, they are doing so at a slower rate, which will continue to decelerate with deforestation and pollution.

Comments

I like that you stated the original was slighty exaggerated. You showed three sources that back-up this claim while also showing the exaggerated and untrue parts of it.

---

This was a great fact-check! It's good that you were able to recognize that it was slightly exaggerated with three credible sources. I like your last part there where you summarize and say that plants still have the ability to absorb carbon, but they're doing it at a slower rate rather than not doing it at all!

Answer 7

This stems from a Guardian article claiming that plants absorbed almost no Carbon last year. That statement is true, due to global warming, plants are not able to get carbon as easily as they used to. This is very concerning on so many different levels. However, the statement claiming that plants have stopped functioning is very false.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/14/nature-carbon-sink-collapse-global-heating-models-emissions-targets-evidence-aoe

Answer 8

This claim is true. The headline "Trees and Land Absorbed Almost No Carbon in the Last Year" is almost too shocking to be believable, but the Guardian, a trusted and reputable news source, linked a study in the fourth paragraph that was the collaborative work of scientists from around the world who came to the same conclusion that the Guardian is reporting. They provide raw data, statistics, graphs, and imagery they sourced themselves to provide evidence of their point that there is an ecological anomaly occurring with the rise of CO2. There are theories this could be the result of extended droughts or increased wildfires, but other experts suggests there is no reason to believe plants will begin absorbing carbon again like they did once before.

Answer 9

The primary claim of the Guardian article states that in the year of 2023 nature's carbon sink absorbed almost no carbon. The article cites a report by a group of researchers whose findings showed that there was, in fact, a significant decrease in the amount of carbon that was absorbed by the Earth's forests and oceans last year. The source is reliable as a scholarly research report, as the report itself cites government websites like the Global Monitoring Laboratory and the Intergrated Carbon Observation System to access the figures used to come to the conclusion of a failing carbon sink. The Guardian is also a typically reliable source, though they have a tendency to maybe exaggerate headlines, as they did with this one. So yes, the claims made in the article are true and reliably backed up.

Link to original research report: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.12447

Answer 10

The claim is sorta True however the articles title is misleading making it seem like its a bigger issue than it really is, its true to the extent that its an issue like this quote from the article linked Quote 

 “We shouldn’t rely on natural forests to do the job. We really, really have to tackle the big issue: fossil fuel emissions across all sectors,” says Prof Pierre Friedlingstein of Exeter University, who oversees the annual Global Carbon Budget calculations.”

With the title “Trees and land absorbed almost no CO2 last year” it gives off the vibe like if all trees or plants have stopped when in reality its exaggerated probably for attention but the article does prove itself with info that is valid and actually correct for example the same article states this Quote
“A paper published in July found that while the total amount of carbon absorbed by forests between 1990 and 2019 was steady, it varied substantially by region. The boreal forests – home to about a third of all carbon found on land, which stretch across Russia, Scandinavia, Canada and Alaska – have seen a sharp fall in the amount of carbon they absorb, down more than a third due to climate crisis-related beetle outbreaks, fire and clearing for timber.” 

Good to say that this is true but misleading in my thoughts