Unfortunately this doesn't mean much for the practical problem, because most of that uptake is is dumped into the atmosphere again when the plant dies and rots.
It's like we've got a bathtub where the water level is rising, because we won't turn off the tap and the drain is only so big. We can lower the apparent water-level by throwing in a bunch of plant-sponges, but we can't just keep adding more indefinitely.
Correct, in the long-term. Like how a temporary loan is somewhat wasted if the breathing-room it generates is only used to delay fixing the budget shortfall.
https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/commentary/blog/why-tempora...
Thanks for responding.
I think the part of the page you linked that is relevant to this topic is:
>But when forest carbon is released—which could happen when trees die in a changing climate, or when short-term carbon offset contracts expire and allow landowners to clear their forests—temperatures inevitably go up.
The first part ("when trees die in a changing climate") links to a National Geographic article behind a paywall. Before the paywall appeared, I noticed it said something about "drought or fire", which leads me to wonder whether the loss of forest carbon occurs only under those conditions. Is that right? If so, by avoiding those conditions, we coughs avoid that loss.
>because most of that uptake is is dumped into the atmosphere again when the plant dies and rots.
If that's true, there would seem to be no benefit to the climate in preserving or regenerating forests.