There's a lot more biomass in an older forest than a younger one, especially a planted forest. Carbon capture will slow down, granted, but a forest takes hundr

There's a lot more biomass in an older forest than a younger one, especially a planted forest. Carbon capture will slow down, granted, but a forest takes hundreds if not thousands of years to reach true equilibrium. There's an immediately obvious difference in biosphere density if you step into a forest that was cut and re-planted a fifty years ago, one that was slash-and-burned a hundred years ago, and primeval forest that's been around since the end of the ice age. There's just a lot more stuff growing in a forest the older it gets. Trees keep growing for a very long time as well, easily doubling or even quadrupling the biomass of a younger tree. All the fossil-sourced carbon we've put into the air the last 100 years or so was, at one point or another put into the ground, mostly by vegetation. Re-planting forest isn't probably in its own an adequate solution, but it shouldn't be dismissed entirely. Compared to active carbon sequestration, the energy cost of letting a forest grow is negligibly low.