See I think that's the forestry industry propaganda that's somehow made its way into environmentalist circles.
The differences you cite are irrelevant in the fight against global warming, where burning wood is the absolute worst. The carbon cycle doesn't matter in the context of how much CO2 are we putting in the atmosphere now, today. It takes too long to matter.
I had to deal with this shit in my environmental studies class in uni. Apparently the forestry industry has been promoting their own brand of propaganda that says burning wood, the most greenhouse-gas-producing fuel on the planet, is environmentally friendly because it is "renewable".
Great, we'll all be dead from global warming but at least in theory the trees that burned down from the wildfires could have reabsorbed that carbon over a couple centuries.
Fun fact, the reason we all call it "climate change" and not "global warming" was because the George W Bush administration directed NASA to do so, as they deemed it less "scary" to the public:
In interviews, Republican politicians and their aides said they agreed with the strategist, Frank Luntz, that it was important to pay attention to what his memorandum, written before the November elections, called ''the environmental communications battle.''
In his memorandum, Mr. Luntz urges that the term ''climate change'' be used instead of ''global warming,'' because ''while global warming has catastrophic communications attached to it, climate change sounds a more controllable and less emotional challenge.''
Also, he wrote, ''conservationist'' conveys a ''moderate, reasoned, common sense position'' while ''environmentalist'' has the ''connotation of extremism.''
President Bush's speeches on the environment show that the terms ''global warming'' and ''environmentalist'' had largely disappeared by late last summer. The terms appeared in a number of President Bush's speeches in 2001, but now the White House fairly consistently uses ''climate change'' and ''conservationist.''
What drives me insane is how everyone on the left just... went along with it. Now we retroactively rewrite history and claim that they were always separate terms with entirely different distinct meanings. And knowing that so many highly educated, inquisitive, independent thinking people didn't think to question that or look into that, it frightens me.
Lobby the government to stop doing that. In the meantime, teach them their rights, how to unionize, help them with food security and finding a place to live, so that they aren't in such a precarious position that makes exploitation so profitable.
The problem is when immigrants from countries with lower labour standards and poorer conditions are effectively used as "scabs", to suppress wage growth and unionization. And I fear the capitalists who benefit from this are pushing the "you just hate immigrants" narrative to protect it.
When my brother was half-awake after raising a baby, he was at the liquor store with his friend to buy a bottle of wine, and the guy at the counter asked "...your ID?" and he heard "Are you ready?" so he just said "Ready for what?" "Your ID!" "Yes I am ready! Let's go!"
Other guy had to step in and say "he's very tired, just had a baby".
Back before George W Bush directed NASA to call it climate change, it was called global warming, and you can definitely win against that - by stopping the earth from warming. That's unwinnable due to feedback loops that have now begun.
The soil.
They don't get all their carbon from the air.