Thankyou very much for that reasoned, reasonable and responsible response.
Part of where we diverge is the 100 year cycle of tree growth. Trees that I planted less than thirty years ago are plenty harvestable now, Many hardwoods are mature in 50-60 years, some less. Some species of softwoods have a 40 year or less total lifespan, many can be economicaly harvested in a 20 year cycle.
Aditionaly, a well managed wood lot increases it's ability to sequester carbon continuously, all the while providing fuel or timber for the owner.
I completely agree about the idiocy of trying to sequester CO2 underground, liquid or gasous. Rather we should make more goods from wood, sinificant sequestering is then acomplished.
As to the last, entirely depends on method, and efficiency of course, but let us look at a couple methods quickly. First, as we are all aware, some of each tree, the root system is left in the ground, where inevitably some carbon sequestration ocurs. Of course, some methane is also procuced, yet not released, hence the natural gas feilds prevalent under 90% of our continent. The root system, all composed of former atmospheric CO2 is larger than it apears, generaly the same diameter of the tree. This is a significant amount of sequestration from every tree burned.
Now for the kind of extreme situation for which I am known to report: though not practiced certainly by most burners, a growing trend, nonetheless.
When I fell a living tree, however, I take the time to cut the tops down to 1'' diameter or less. I then stack the brush to dry. There is of course much less brush, since I buck so much of it. When the brush has dried, I use some of it as fuel, and the remainder as stock to make charcoal. I then integrate the charcoal into my soil, vastly improving the yeild of the garden. This is known as "bio-char" and done correctly, is indeed carbon negative. Less carbon is released in heating with trees treated so than the tree absorbed during it's lifespan. While I produce more bio-char than I need, I use the surplus as forge fuel since I am a blacksmith (full time).
The charcoal is wonderfull forge fuel, hotter and cleaner than the nasty bituminous (closer to tar than coal) coal generaly used by blacksmiths. As a member of a blacksmith fraternity similar in size to this forum, I know that many others also produce their own charcoal, often just to save money, but also due to the general difficulty in aquiring bituminous coal. Sorry, but off track there.
Of course, much of the wood I burn is not treated this way, since I often recieved trunks from tree services, the tops have been chipped. It is the only cost effective method for those in the business.
Now for the even more extreme method of my brother in a nearby town. On his six acre farm, he harvests locust. He sells cords of locust for $400, all he can porduce. It is that good of a fuel. The tops are then gassifed, in a charcoal producing gasifier. The heat from the gasifer heats his shop and home. All the charcoal produced is put into his feilds, sand, no other fertilizer is used. He grows a native crop, it thrives in sand, but his yeild is doubled in the augmented feilds. The stumps are left in the feilds, he plants around them. Again, truly and fully carbon negative, not only at his farm, but at the homes of those who burn his fuel.
Wood pellet users are also burning carbon negative, since the pellets are a by-product of durable wood manufactured goods. The pellets are burned, but the majority of the tree becomes locked in a home or furniture.
