I'm interested in your calculations, where...?

Meanwhile we are cutting the last of old growth.

Scientists figured we'd have to cover all of North America, tundra, desert, ALL of it, to offset 10-years of CO2 output. And then we'd have to do it again in every 10-years.

Why does it have to be old growth though? New growth is faster growing species and has more plants at the ground level. I would think a hectare of growing pine would capture more CO2 than a relatively static oak forest. ?

How much more would we need to emit to capture all that, freeze it into a giant cube and fucking YEET that into space? No carbon - no problem.

Not a serious proposal, just curious

Not necessarily! We could theoretically bury that biomass deep underground where the pressure and heat eventually turn it into fossil fuels.

Not that it's particularly likely, but it is technically possible!

I mean, not quite, it all depends on what happens to them once they die

My understanding is that nutrition has got more to do with selective breeding, soil microbial ecosystems, and depletion of plant micronutrients - we focus on macronutrients (N-P-K) in fertilizer.

But I think it does have an impact on plant growth. Fossil records suggest larger plants, and people who grow “tomatoes” indoors sometimes pipe in CO2 I think. Works well if you brew beer near your tent.