| Forests are not very good carbon sinks except in the short run. They have three problems when used as carbon sinks: 1) They tie up land for one, otherwise, non productive purpose (the wild species living in them do not mind that, must be said) 2) Once fully grown they reach a carbon balance. This can happen surprisingly quickly, a few decades. 2) Forests do not simply sit there like a rock. Eventually they will burn unless managed. Then they simply release all that stored carbon into the atmosphere. Regenerative agriculture is a much better carbon sink. The process of storing the carbon increases the soil fertility so it is a win/win. Soils can get very deep so there is not a natural limit like for forests. A draw back is measuring the carbon sunk. I do not know of anybody doing that (a market opportunity?). An important part of carbon farming is selling the "carbon credits" (a mad bad and sad idea, but it is a thing) to do that there must be an accepted measure of carbon sequestration, like there is for trees. |
AFAIK they also create a more moderate micro climate, reducing soil temperature, retaining humidity and rain while keeping it in the soil, reducing the risk of draughts.
Of course regenerative agriculture is much better but the effort to implement it at a scale is incomparably greater, while it should not be shunned.
Also agroforestry will help with making agriculture possible in larger areas of land.