tiedigger

It doesn’t it is around 50 years in use and often it is nearly impossible to find wooden artifacts after 1000 years. In rare cases like the Kalambo structure it is more.

You would need structures akin to nuclear waste storage to seal all dead trees away, which would be a lot of space and money you have to spend. And then it would still not be forever.

Which gets us back to my argument that you have to increase the used landmass for forests by 1% per year yeah which means after 50 years the earth is full of forests, which is unsustainable. You are nearly there

Yeah it is stored in the living tree the moment the tree dies it will be released back into the atmosphere by decomposing.

Further I already use niced up numbers in favour of trees there because I use forests not trees and forests save half their carbon in the soil

Removing would be that it is removed out of the carbon cycle but that isn’t happening here the carbon cycle storage is just higher.

It will not work because it doesn’t matter if you burn it or not. If you don’t burn it, the CO2 will be released regardless because the wood will decompost in 10-50 years.

That will not work. Because Forrests only store CO2 but won’t remove it, you have to add more forest areas. Currently the store around 900 gigatons of CO2 and occupy 30% of the land mass. We produce about 33gigatons of CO2 each year (this is just a emission btw the real number through land change etc is higher) which means we would need to plant trees on 1% of earth each year, which is not sustainable for more than 50 years.