Comment by argiopetech

But it might change what we view as a legitimate mitigation strategy.

For example, could we burn oil at 2024's rates with 1900's forests and not have net-positive CO2 levels? Back of the napkin:

- We're producing ~37 gigatons of CO2 (GtCO2) through burning of fossil fuels at the moment [0]

- The current forestation level is ~4 billion hectares [1]

- The net loss of forestation is ~1 billion hectares since 1900, with deforestation rates peaking starting ~100 years ago. [1]

- 1 petagram == 1 Gt

- Current forests consume 157 Gt/yr [article]

Therefore, the billion hectares we cut down in the past century would consume an additional 157 * 0.25 == 39.25 GtCO2/yr if it were still standing, 2 Gt more than our historical maximum global net output.

Obviously, the burning of fossil fuels is ultimate source of the increase in CO2, but without the deforestation it would still (back of the napkin) be sustainable. At least, we'd not be quite so far down this road.

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi...

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation