"Diplomat for plants" claims "protecting forests" will keep planet-warming carbon out of the atmosphere." Really?

The Washington Post loves duh environment.  That's fabulous--we all do.  Problem is, the writers on the Post don't know fuck-all about real science.  So when a leftist darling like Monica Medina, the just-appointed "diplomat for plants and animals," makes a statement that is utter garbage--that is, not even remotely accurate--the Post prints it verbatim, and a million uneducated young Americans immediately accept it as true.

So here's a quote from the Post's slobbering interview with Medina about the regime's faaabulous new "diplomat to plants and animals":

"Protecting ecosystems such as forests and peatlands, Medina noted, will help keep climate-warming carbon out of the atmosphere in the first place."

Hmmm...  She used the word "protecting," which good people intuitively support, eh?  Hard to argue against "protecting" something.  But what does Monica actually mean by this?

Because she's for biodiversity, it would seem to be fair to assume she means leaving the "forests and peatlands" in their current condition.  Okay, and the next question is, how does that "help keep climate-warming carbon out of the atmosphere," as Monica and the Post claim?

Observation #1: If you've ever walked through a real forest you should have noticed lots of fallen trees.  Those trees are--what's the term?  Oh yeah: dead.

Observation #2: The trunks and branches of trees are made of cellulose, and when trees die, micro-organisms turn the cellulose into energy--and something else: either CO2 or...methane.

Observation #3:  Both those are gases, and are obviously released into the atmosphere.

Observation #4:  Pound for pound, methane--CH4--is a stronger "greenhouse gas" than CO2. 

So how does "protecting forests and peatlands" prevent this?

I look forward to some non-Mainstream "reporter" asking Monica that question.  I'll be extremely interested in her answer.