> If you burn the equivalent of thirty years of forest growth and release that carbon it will take, I don't know, a thousand years to get it back. Something is

> If you burn the equivalent of thirty years of forest growth and release that carbon it will take, I don't know, a thousand years to get it back. Something is wrong with your statement and the answer is right there in your sentence. If you burn thirty years of forest growth it would take thirty years of forest growth to get it back. A carbon cycle is a cycle, plants die AND plants grow. And the best part is we simply leave it alone to grow. GP's point is that fossil fuels don't grow like this.