Plants are no longer absorbing carbon dioxide

Question

Honestly, this claim made me a little agitated and upset. It is very obviously false. This made it very interesting to read about, mostly because that's not how our world works. Photosynthesis will never stop because CO2 will never not be produced. If that were to happen then they would stop emitting oxygen and we wouldn't be able to breath. 

It was super interesting to dig a little deeper about this topic because there were many articles out there that vouched for this claim. It's also very scary to think how some people can be so ignorant to topics like this. Climate change is very real.

Don't get me wrong, climate change is heavily ruining our world, but I think CO2 absorption would be the least of our worries. When I think of climate change, I think of greenhouse gasses, polar bears losing their home, and how we are (corporations) choosing money over our world. I wouldn't have even thought about the CO2 levels, so it was interesting reading about it. I think more people need to be educated on this topic, plants don't just stop their basic nature.

Answer 1

 The claim that plants are no longer absorbing carbon is false. Where there is some evidence that ecosystems have become less efficient at digesting carbon, the statement that  they have stopped entirely is false. Plants intake carbon allowing them to grow and photosynthesize. While doing this the produce oxygen, a key element for us humans to breathe, and all living life to exist on earth. With the recent events of climate change and the rapid effects being seen. Plants are having to cycle through a lot more Carbon Dioxide. With a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, plants have to adapt to absorb more carbon. This shows the opposite of the statement that plants have ceased absorption. However the rapid growth of climate change suggests that Plants may becoming less efficient at the production of oxygen. In an article posted by NASA, they state,  “While an abundance of CO2 won’t limit growth, a lack of water, nutrients, or sunlight – the other necessary components of photosynthesis — will. To determine why the CFE has been decreasing, the study team took the availability of these other elements into account.-‘According to our data, what appears to be happening is that there’s both a moisture limitation as well as a nutrient limitation coming into play”. Though there is research suggesting that plants are becoming less efficient there is another part to the picture. SciTechDaily says that plants are absorbing 31% more carbon dioxide then we had first thought. Around 40 years ago scientists had estimated that a total of 120 petagrams were being absorbed by plants. With a large group of scientists behind the study, Cornell University, and the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that plants may be absorbing 157 petagrams of CO2. Petagrams track the largest exchange of CO2 and oxygen, looking at the amount of CO2 relieved from the atmosphere. This results in photosynthesis in land allowing them to measure the “Terrestrial Gross Primary Production (GPP).” With much research constantly being done, and the climate changing greatly, it is hard to see whether plants are becoming more or less efficient at removing carbon from the earth. While its hard to find exactly how efficient they are, it is easy to see that if we keep letting the climate change in the way it is, there will not be enough plants to offset the amount of carbon us humans produce. Action is required so that our earth can become healthy again.

 

 

 

https://www.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/land-ecosystems-are-becoming-less-efficient-at-absorbing-co2/\

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-were-wrong-plants-absorb-31-more-co2-than-previously-thought/

Comments

I really appreciated this factcheck since the sources mentioned came from different backgrounds and all very well sources to use as evidence to challenge the claim that plants no longer absorb CO2. You were able to explain where the origin of this claim came from and how a miscommunication could have been presented as you mention, "rapid growth of climate change suggests that Plants may becoming less efficient at the production of oxygen." This was a key detail in your factcheck that I applaud you for!

Answer 2

I strongly disagree with the fact that plants are no longer absorb carbon dioxide. If plants stopped absorbing carbon dioxide, we would stop living quickly due to increased releases into the atmosphere. According to https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/understanding-plants/how-plants-breathe, plants need to create photosynthesis in order to release oxygen for us to breathe. Plants do in fact still absorb carbon dioxide.

Answer 3

This claim is false, plants most definitely still absorb carbon dioxide. Plants absorb CO2 through photosynthesis, and without doing this plants would not grow. Plants take CO2 from the air, convert it into sugars with sunlight, and use the energy to grow. This is a scientific fact that has been researched for many years. In a recent study from 2024, Cornell University scientists discovered plants are absorbing about 31% more CO2 than they had previously thought. LINK This is a trusted source as The Technology Network is an online scientific outlet that publishes research summaries of all scientific fields. The article clearly states the study it talks about and includes details from the original scientists in that study.

Comments

I wholeheartedly agree with your claim because without plants, we wouldn't be able to breathe as clearly as we do. Also, if the plants were not performing photosynthesis, they wouldn't be able to function.

Answer 4

This claim is most definitely false, because if plants were to no longer absorb CO2 that would mean there is no photosynthesis. And then if there was no photosynthesis then we would not be able to breathe because there would be no oxygen. Plants use sunlight to convert water and CO2 into sugar and this process helps regulate our planet by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. I understand that we are in a climate crisis, but it is not the loss of CO2 in it is actually the extra CO2 that is affecting climate change. From Climate.MIT.EDU a credible source they state, " its te extra CO2 in the air today- from human activities like burning fossil fuels, that has boosted the rate of photosynthesis and let plants take up more carbon". With this in mind since there is too much CO2 levels it leads plants to not be able to absorb it all.

Although I could see where you may have got this statement, because NASA in 2020 posted an article that "Land Ecosystems are Becoming Less Efficient at Absorbing CO2". Within this article though, no where does it state that plants do not absorb CO2 they just raise concerns that they are becoming less efficient and studying why this is.

My sources: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-human-produced-carbon-dioxide-taken-faster-plant-growth-around-world

https://www.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/land-ecosystems-are-becoming-less-efficient-at-absorbing-co2/

Comments

I think your work highlights very well the basic idea of how science of how photosynthesis works, which shows why the claim is an invalid one. Bringing a source as NASA in your research I believe, is a big plus. With the help of that we can see clearly and specifically the misunderstanding between the diffrences of how plants DO NOT absorb CO2 at all vs the plants becoming LESS efficient at absorbing it.

---

I think that this is the best reply to this article i've seen so far because you don't involve emotion while also doing a great job at stating the facts.

Answer 5

I totally understand why this post was frustrating, and for plants to just up and stop absorbing carbon dioxide does not make sense. But, in these posts we have to separate emotion from the evidence. From the article that you linked it stated that carbon dioxide is actually boosting plant productivity. Now, in some regions some plants may be experiencing a drought or extreme heat and this is where they can absorb less carbon dioxide. If the original author made that claim it would of made more sense but they lacked information and if it was the other way around it would make the discussion more accurate.