I mean, it says right there in the article: >Even upping the total to 400 megatonnes, however, is not especially comforting given that our annual carbon emissi

I mean, it says right there in the article: >Even upping the total to 400 megatonnes, however, is not especially comforting given that our annual carbon emissions are well over 350 gigatonnes. "Even under a best-case scenario and when accounting for this gap," Johnston and Radeloff write, "the global potential of [wood products] as a carbon sink is minor and always less than 1 percent of emissions." Less than 1 percent of yearly emissions. It's good there are countries where that percent is higher, but sadly when it comes to CO2 emissions, it's the global result that matters. We not only have to get to zero our current emissions, but we also have to bury back the historic CO2.