[karolinepauls]

The parent comment I'm responding to is literally:

> A forest or wetland is a carbon sink only in the growth phase. In a long-term equilibrium, it's carbon-neutral, like biofuels.

To which I'm stating that forests and wetlands are not carbon-neutral but carbon-negative.

Then you miss the parent comment's context and start in an inflammatory way:

> Bwahaha, this is so ridiculous.

And take it somewhere else (move the goalpost) - from whether forests are carbon neutral or not to how effective charcoal creation is at carbon capture, in our human timescale.

Meanwhile the only practical point wrt. charcoal creation from forests was:

> Humans could actually cut down old trees, dry them, and convert them to charcoal later used for soil enrichment.

Which doesn't propose an effective carbon capture solution. At most it's something like emission reduction - the key phrase is old trees. And soil enrichment.

Recommendation: don't argue against points people didn't make.

[lazide]

Sounds like you might want to actually read the thread? Unless there is a geological process involved (very rare, and obvious when there is), long term forests and wetlands are carbon neutral - or they would be sitting on massive quantities of carbon. The vast majority are clearly not.

[karolinepauls]

I was responding to as single comment. I do not have a responsibility to respond to the whole thread. I'm going to include it again, in full:

> A forest or wetland is a carbon sink only in the growth phase. In a long-term equilibrium, it's carbon-neutral, like biofuels.

Highlight: *In a long-term equilibrium*. The comment literally talks about long time periods...