I mean.. I get your point.. but 9% is still a lot, and even if it's net-zero, the carbon sequestration going into that process can't be negligible.
It may be a click-bait factoid, but it's not like that factoid isn't an important one.
It may be a click-bait factoid, but it's not like that factoid isn't an important one.
And I'm not qualified to answer what happens when you burn down an entire millenia-old ecosystem. Seems plausible that it might not go straight back to its old self in a human-relevant timeframe.
That’s not obvious to me. Most plants are C2 plants, but grass is a C4 so it captures sunlight more efficiently.
Not to say burning the Amazon isn’t a terrible idea.
Not that any of this is a valid excuse for burning down the Amazon.