Mature forests are not carbon-neutral. In the US the forests absorb about 12% of the greenhouse gas emissions [1]. Can this number go to 20%, for example? I think so. A trivial legislative change would be to stop the subsidies for ethanol, and to offer them instead to plant forests on the acreage currently used for its feedstock corn. That would be about 30 million acres. At a reasonable 15 tons of CO2 absorbed per year, that would be 450 megatons CO2 per year, or about 7% of the US emissions, so that would bring us to 19%. But more is possible.
Can we reach a point where the trees absorb 100% of the emissions (without reducing the emissions)? I don't think so. And I think it's wrong to attempt that. But trees can have a very meaningful impact, we should not dismiss them so cavalierly.
Mature forests are not carbon-neutral. In the US the forests absorb about 12% of the greenhouse gas emissions [1]. Can this number go to 20%, for example? I think so. A trivial legislative change would be to stop the subsidies for ethanol, and to offer them instead to plant forests on the acreage currently used for its feedstock corn. That would be about 30 million acres. At a reasonable 15 tons of CO2 absorbed per year, that would be 450 megatons CO2 per year, or about 7% of the US emissions, so that would bring us to 19%. But more is possible.
Can we reach a point where the trees absorb 100% of the emissions (without reducing the emissions)? I don't think so. And I think it's wrong to attempt that. But trees can have a very meaningful impact, we should not dismiss them so cavalierly.
[1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...