[bergoid]

> Now had we created no-development zones around forests, to allow them to expand naturally, in a world not deforesting at ever increasing rate...

I am no fan of rainforest destruction and the ensuing loss of biodiversity, but globally the world is not deforesting:

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-global-forest-loss-years-offse...

[NeedMoreTea]

Rather reinforces my point. Headline: "global forest loss over past 35 years has been more than offset by new forest growth"

Replacing the carbon storage of a single 100 metre mature rain forest meranti, and the diverse ecosystem below it by new growth requires how many square miles? It's a net loss for a century, perhaps more. Overall it's a colossal loss.

I note that article accounts for area covered only. No mention of the human activity, of the clear burning, size of trees, amount of other growth under the canopy etc.

[rtkwe]

Cutting growth could be carbon positive in some limited circumstances I guess. If it's used to build houses or other structures where the wood doesn't rot in terms of just the materials it /could/ be storage positive if the equivalent land is replanted.