The climate narrative builds on a misleading carbon accounting framework that is making a canopy problem look like an energy problem.Farmers and loggers have been removing the plants that, until recently, kept the soil fungi alive, broke the wind, and soaked up the inevitable emissions tied to their operations. The result is wide open fields that emit a slow motion plume of carbon dioxide after tilling, harvesting, or clearing operations. Leaving the canopy intact makes these plumes go away.The carbon accounting framework keeps these plumes of carbon dioxide out of scrutiny because of the long-term models used to compute carbon stock changes. The plumes tied to logging compare in size with those of the German economy. Those tied to farming operations are much larger.It follows that atmospheric carbon dioxide is tied to topsoil loss, and that reversing the trend is a simple matter of strategically putting plants back into farming (and logging) operations.This explanation is compatible with isotopic analyses that pin the blame for atmospheric carbon on fossil fuels: plants simply cycle it first. It also points to simple ways to soak up the output of industrial smokestacks.

The rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is chiefly tied to land stewardship.Farmers and loggers have removed the plants that, until the industrial era, kept the soil fungi alive, kept soil emissions nearby by breaking the wind, and soaked those up. The result is plumes of carbon dioxide.Putting plants back in would curb these emissions. Farmers and loggers could address biodiversity loss in the process.Auditing the deceitful carbon accounting shows that these emissions are the only ones that matter. A chicanery hides them from view while fueling dubious activities.The contribution of fossil fuels to atmospheric carbon dioxide is small. It likely comes from emissions sources with no nearby plants, like industrial smokestacks. Bio-sequestration could curb that wasted carbon dioxide.This topsoil loss is fueling desertification. Better land stewardship would reverse the latter.Desertification, natural variability, and other man-made decisions can be confused as climate change by those who do not work with nature.In the end, the carbon accounting framework is Orwellian Newspeak. So is the language used in nature conservation. The policies that they serve to justify warrant a closer look.