[dcolkitt]

This is true on the scale of decades, but the problem with climate change is we don't need carbon neutrality for O(50 years). We need carbon neutrality today.

Yes maybe those forests would eventually release carbon in 2050 is all well and good, but very likely we'll have total clean tech solutions by then anyway. In contrast we only have a short window to reduce atmospheric carbon substantially to prevent significant warming by the end of the century. To the extent possible if we can keep carbon sequestered today and pay by having it released in 30 years that's a very good deal. Because it stops the runaway warming today, and it gives us three decades of investment to start sequestering atmospheric carbon.

[uuidgen]

But now a lot of infrastructure runs on coal. You can use wood instead and have this carbon captured and reused in the next 10 years or you can still burn coal while awaiting a perfect solution.

We have surplus of farmland due to farm efficiency. We have more forests in EU now than we had 10 years ago. Switching to biomass is a good step because every ton of wood that emits CO2 that will be recycled is better than 0.6-0.8 ton coal that gets burned now and adds carbon.