Intuitively I’d guess the carbon is net negative because so many forests require fire in order to differentiate strong, durable trees from weaker ones, which th

Intuitively I’d guess the carbon is net negative because so many forests require fire in order to differentiate strong, durable trees from weaker ones, which then opens the canopy, returns nutrients to the soil, and creates conditions more like we see in old growth forests which are able to store absolutely massive amounts of carbon compared to young (even very dense) forests. Not only that but they store water better, too. They’re less likely to burn as they stay wetter later in the dry season and hold onto rain and atmospheric moisture far better. Cutting down old forests was a much worse idea than anyone would have guessed.