The guilty parties here are politicians, bureaucrats and corporations who wanted to be seen as 'doing something' or selling 'responsible stewardship' to the public while actually doing nothing. I honestly have more respect for the outfits that didn't even bother with such bogus PR claims (ExxonMobil) vs the shady fraudsters who tried to greenwash their image this way (BP 'Beyond Petroleum', Chevron's 'sustainability program'). Politicians like Al Gore hyped these schemes as well, while not doing much that would actually decrease fossil fuel use (like a massive increase in solar/wind/storage technology R&D and manufacturing support). Countries like Canada used this nonsense to justify continuing with the dirtiest fossil fuel production system on the planet, i.e. Alberta tar sand mining, all while portraying themselves as green enviromentalists.

Such opportunistic politicization of the issue has resulted in major problems ever since when it comes to explaining the science to skeptics, who understandably started to think it was all about politics.

Even 30 years ago when these schemes were first trotted out as 'cap and trade' scientists knew they were bogus. Forests weren't capable of expanding to absorb fossil carbon being pumped into the atmosphere and predictions of continental drying (reduced growth rates), warmer winters (allowing insect infestations), and longer fire seasons (burning down the forests) all pointed to steady reductions in standing biomass, not increases.

> A portion of those credits are put into a buffer account, an insurance mechanism tapped in the event that projects are lost to wildfire, disease, pests or financial risks such as bankruptcy. Those credits are meant to guarantee carbon stocks for at least 100 years. But that promise is falling short as climate change fuels intense wildfires, drought and disease, the researchers said.

> Wildfires have depleted nearly one fifth of that buffer pool in less than a decade, the analysis found.

So, they're generally giving the impression this is all a terrible scam, but the figures they quote suggest that there was planning for fire and diseas, and that the buffer is slightly more depleted than expected after a decade.

And that if lots of trees die, this will "wipe out" the extra carbon credits put aside specifically to cover the eventuality that some trees might die.

I've even debated on twitter with published scientists on this issue. It's odd how susceptible to naturophilia even very well educated people can be, to the point of denying what seems like an obvious conclusion.

No amount of trees or other biomass can revert what we have done or even make a significant dent.

Currently, all biomass on Earth equals about a decade of our emissions from carbon we dug out. Even doubling all biomass, which is impossible to do, would only be roughly equal to pausing our emissions for a decade.

That is, assuming all that biomass does not revert into carbon through fires and other ways.

https://www.theregister.com/2008/02/01/bofh_episode_4/

The mountain forests in Southern California (near Yosemite, etc) have been burnt out hellscapes for years.

Of course, this is all rounding error vs. the loss of 90% of the kelp forest, which many people didn't notice, since it's underwater. The kelp biomass the has been lost in the last few years is equal to 100% of the redwood forests.

As I like to shout from the rooftops, gasoline could be made carbon negative with a ~ $1/gallon direct air carbon capture tax. (And similar for the other fossil fuels.). I recently saw $7.99 / gallon, so that's a bit over a 10% tax in some areas.

Yes, poor people need gasoline too. We should tax new ICE vehicles at some astronomical rate and plow the money into steeper EV subsidies.

Alternatively, we could tax ICE new vehicles so (assuming they run for 250K miles) the purchaser pays 100% of the carbon recapture cost up front.

We could also allow for community net metering so poor high density areas could establish nonprofit solar/wind farms that lower their electricity bills.

As far as I can tell, all these plans are deficit neutral and would also boost the economy.

I have not studied or worked with bio-oils, but on biochar: As a soil amendment, many soil types are incompatible with addition of biochar. Biochar tends to retain water, which is a problem if you add it to already poorly draining soils. Biochar also shifts soil pH. In some cases this is good, in other cases it is bad. I think it is the minority of soils that are actually improved by adding biochar. I am not aware of any studies that show that biochar is a suitable carbon storage scheme. The last time I reviewed the research, the behavior of carbon in soils is as yet poorly understood and appears to be quite complex. It may be a decade or more before we understand what biochar does when added to different soil types, and we might learn that the majority of it ends up as CO2 within a couple years.

Finally you mention burying trees: it may be that this accelerates the release of Carbon. Depending on climate, standing timber often lasts longer. Dead wood on the ground (or buried) is often wetter, which favors decomposition.

I am not trying to sound negative here. You bring up a lot of points that are being actively researched and worked on. But there are not any clear easy solutions. We need to work on this problem. I wish we (as a society) were putting a lot more into this effort.

Is there a fundamental reason you can't treat the wood to make it non flammable and non digestible, and just stack them in big piles somewhere?

The majority of pine-beetle related deaths are in the southern range of the Sierras, south of Yosemite, but it occurs well into the North, as mentioned. Even conservatives, cant-be-bothered people have noticed the huge stands of dead trees, because you see them when driving to Yosemite for vacation. Meanwhile greens have been flipping out amongst themselves for years.

The forest carbon studies executed on Azure cloud mentioned here, have agenda and suffer from ordinary capitalist-picked experts problems, but generally we should all support more quantitative, fact-based decision making.

The dunce cap here definitely goes to the US Forest Service, and cronies, who have for 100 years, exercised their extensive muscle to prove without a doubt that they are in fact, red-neck badge-wearing troglodytes from a Robin Hood movie, for the most part; dramatic exceptions within the ranks noted.