You guys are both on it. Back 30 years ago when I was in grad school in forest ecology classes, there were only a couple ways considered as valid to interrupt the carbon cycle in forest condtions. Mature forest is a carbon storage area, but does not fix a net amount of carbon and is basically carbon neutral... what it fixes is roughly equivalent to that released by decomposition of leaves, slash, etc. A young forest fixes carbon at a much higher rate. The problem is getting the mature forest's carbon out of the system to make room for higher rates of fixation.
One of the ways is to delay the carbon release by using lumber from the mature forest in building structures that last a long time. The carbon is out of the system as long as the building is intact.
The only other way that was known to be feasible at that time was to take the boles of the big trees and sink them into anaerobic places in the ocean to prevent the decompostion release of carbon. Not a realistic thing given the cost.
As you guys said, burning "brush" is essentially carbon neutral.
Replacing the brush with trees fixes more than the original shrub field had, so burning followed by reforestation or aforestion is a way to remove carbon from the system which can continue for a couple hundred years in the right conditions. Of course, wildfire is part of the climate so must be planned for.
I burn firewood exclusively for heating, which is considered green since it is carbon neutral, and avoids the fossil fuel issue other than the small amount used in the chainsaw and a couple gallons of gas for the truck. Certainly less than having a propane tank in the yard. It only really works in rural settings where air quality is not a primary issue. We have NW prevailing wind, and the next town downwind is 200 miles away in Nevada, more than enough room for thorough mixing.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
