> Plants the world over are absorbing about 31% more carbon dioxide than previously thought, according to a new assessment developed by scientists.
So that means our supposed CO2 problem is 31% smaller than we previously thought?
So that means our supposed CO2 problem is 31% smaller than we previously thought?
Another way of looking at it is that planting trees may be more effective at removing CO2 than previously thought, and deforestation somewhat more harmful.
The research doesn't indicate that more carbon in total is absorbed than we thought - we've got a pretty solid understanding of the total carbon absorption capacity, because we measure it directly, rather than model it. It indicates that a larger proportion of the carbon absorption comes from plants than we thought (around 33%, instead of 25%), with the other sources taking on proportionally less of the absorption.
This research will allow us to more accurately model how land use impacts CO2 though, and will likely put a higher premium on protecting plant life in any carbon assessments.
So it means planting extra plants to fight CO2 is much more effective than previously thought?
No. This study has changed precisely nothing about how we measure CO2 in the atmosphere. Or climate change in general.