[pvaldes]

This is logging business, not conservation. Making furniture when we need to make climate. What was the title of this thread?

> Growing them in good crop land for something like this would be a waste, for instance.

Obviously not, because environmental services are also needed

[lazide]

Not logging those trees is neither conservation or sequestration. But you seem to be stuck on that.

And those crops not only would sequester carbon faster most likely (if you buried them anyway), but be far more scalable and efficient in doing so.

I love trees, but square peg round hole.

[pvaldes]

> Not logging those trees is neither conservation...

not chopping forests is by definition, a basic advise in all serious treatises know by men, on conservation of biodiversity on forest ecosystems [1]

[1] Only exceptions when is a mono-culture, or when we deal with alien species

Yes, I know that biodiversity can increase in ecotones. But to have a forest boundary, you need to have a forest first.

> ... or sequestration

trees take CO2 from the air and store it in wood, a structure that can last potentially for several hundreds or even thousands of years. Half of this structure is buried in the soil. Tons of carbon. If this is not the very own definition of sequestration of CO2, I don't know how to call it.

A sofa can't grow.

> those crops not only would sequester carbon faster most likely (if you buried them)

What crops? corn? wrong. The soft wood Paulownia? Wrong again. The Paulownia superfast thing is based in a lie.

> but be far more scalable and efficient in doing so.

Again wrong

> Everybody is delusory

Okay