> Additionally timber likes to make claims like "we plant 2 trees for every 1 harvested." What they don't tell you is that half the trees won't make it to the n

> Additionally timber likes to make claims like "we plant 2 trees for every 1 harvested." What they don't tell you is that half the trees won't make it to the next clear, and often smaller/weaker/sick trees are culled before a full clear to make room for better ones to grow. Sure, but the number of trees doesn't matter so much -- the amount of carbon sequestered by those trees is more important. Presumably, thinning out the weak trees allows the stronger trees to grow larger. The US timber industry is actually pretty good for sequestering carbon because their economic incentives lead them to: - Select fast-growing species of trees - Harvest the trees before they reach their terminal state (when they stop acting as a carbon sink), then replant new trees. - Promote the use of timber products as substitutes for carbon-intensive building materials, like concrete. There was an interesting life-cycle analysis of this published a few years back: https://www.fpl.fs.usda.gov/documnts/pdf2011/fpl_2011_lippke001.pdf https://www.fpl.fs.usda.gov/documnts/pdf2011/fpl_2011_lippke...