> It doesn't matter You're still focusing on carbon and carbon only, and ignoring other aspects of the problem (like increase in warming due to much potent gre

> It doesn't matter You're still focusing on carbon and carbon only, and ignoring other aspects of the problem (like increase in warming due to much potent greenhouse gases, pollution etc. etc.). > Where do you think the carbon goes? I'm talking about difference between pastures and forests. Old-growth forests may seem stagnant, but they still store massive amount of carbon in the wood, soil, dead wood and litter that slowly decomposes, and below-ground biomass (massive trees with extensive roots = massive microbiome). When a mature forest is logged for animal ag, not only it releases the carbon stored in the trees' biomass, but it also disrupts the soil and can result in substantial carbon emissions. The rate at which mature forests continue to absorb CO2 is a topic of research, some studies argue that older forest continue serving as significant carbon sinks, other that they don't. But both camps see their value due to large amounts of carbon they store and the biodiversity they enable. > It's not the soil, it only accumulates a fraction of mm per year I thought we're talking about carbon storage, not soil formation. > CO2 stored in animal biomass of a new forest is not even a drop in the bucket Sure, because wildlife has no value except as being a storage medium for CO2. /s > after saying that you don't have time to engage Yeah, I really shouldn't.