Originally Posted by
rickair7777
Two small problems with that...
The wood will eventually decompose, releasing the carbon back into the air although if you stored in cool, dry underground facilities it could obviously last for centuries, even longer. The natural cycle of plants absorbing CO2 and then releasing it when they die and decompose is carbon neutral. But our problem is we're digging up long-buried carbon (fossil fuels) and releasing it into the atmosphere. To reverse that, we have to put it back in the ground (or in gi-normous warehouses, or outer space, etc).
The bigger issue is that the number of trees required to offset carbon emissions from human activity would require vast amounts of arable land and would have to compete with agriculture.
Also IIRC the rain forests (which are vanishing) scrub carbon at a rate which is much higher, acre for acre, than say pine trees. I'm not sure there's enough arable land on the planet to both feed us and scrub out the CO2 from unrestrained human activity. Certainly doesn't hurt to plant trees where it makes sense, ex former forests which were logged or burned.
others disagree with your analysis:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/07/how-to-erase-100-years-carbon-emissions-plant-trees/
https://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/carbon.shtml
Forests and Climate Change
Since the carbon is neither created nor destroyed, ALL PROCESSES are carbon neutral. What we are talking about is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
ALL FOSSIL FUEL was once put in the ground by biological processes. More is being put there every day in peat bogs and as methane hydrates in the deep oceans. Other is being captured as standing timber. Certainly if you then burn the wood, like burning any fossil fuel, that CO2 can be released again. Most coal was once trees or peat.