"An acre of forest sequesters somewhere in the region of 30,000 lbs of carbon dioxide. Individual trees die and are reborn, but the forest as a whole, if it does not shrink, retains that carbon."
But it's even more complicated than that ...
We are reforesting ~20 acres of woodland just outside of San Francisco and we are not, as you say, thinking about individual trees - we are thinking of the woods as a whole ...
... which means clearing out a tremendous amount of sapling / deadwood / litter material that would quickly combust in a wildfire and destroy the entire forest.
So while we are on track for planting >200 redwood and douglas fir trees, we have also had to cut down >100 marginal trees to reduce fuel load. We're thinking on the scale of the entire forest and the entire forest needs to survive a burn ... including our relatively new trees that aren't as fire resistant as the old growth redwoods that were originally logged out of here.
Generally speaking:
The complexity of carbon mathematics is fraught and complex and I don't think it's reasonable to expect end users like consumers to navigate it.
But it's even more complicated than that ...
We are reforesting ~20 acres of woodland just outside of San Francisco and we are not, as you say, thinking about individual trees - we are thinking of the woods as a whole ...
... which means clearing out a tremendous amount of sapling / deadwood / litter material that would quickly combust in a wildfire and destroy the entire forest.
So while we are on track for planting >200 redwood and douglas fir trees, we have also had to cut down >100 marginal trees to reduce fuel load. We're thinking on the scale of the entire forest and the entire forest needs to survive a burn ... including our relatively new trees that aren't as fire resistant as the old growth redwoods that were originally logged out of here.
Generally speaking:
The complexity of carbon mathematics is fraught and complex and I don't think it's reasonable to expect end users like consumers to navigate it.