The studies that say newly growing forests absorb carbon at a faster rate are suspect (logging industry funded). For starters, I wouldn't believe the logging industry propaganda.

First, let's consider tree farms, modern mono-cultures. Please look at google maps at anywhere in the northwest, and you'll see it looks like checkerboards. This is not satellite imagery being stitched together, that is what it looks like. So much forest have been cut and regrown several times over.

These tree farms - they're dense, bio-engineer to have small branches that are shed early. The trees grow like an overgrown bush, the canopy is almost exclusively at the top 10% layer. The effective area for photosynthesis is that of a field covered in a thick layer of bushes. Compare that to a field of conifers that have far more photosynthesis area on them overall, it extends from the top of the tree to the even the bottom half, in addition to the tree being taller. In a natural forest trees will fall and create gaps, allowing for more use of the vertical space. A natural forest is effectively a series of vertical gardens.

Next, let's consider tree rings. I don't buy the idea that a few saplings are going to do anywhere near the same activity as a 200 foot redwood. The amount of carbon in a tree ring for a 1000 foot tree is likely astounding. A new layer of bark on something that has a 10-40 foot diameter. (Red woods are amazing trees)

Next, it takes a good 30 years for that regrowth cycle to happen. What's more, humans have been doing that round-the-clock in North America since Europeans arrived. The "2nd" growth is like the 6th to 10th time we have been through this. The forests that have been managed like this are not great (they have low recreational value, they burn like crazy, they clearly don't have the same mass of green material that would be doing photosynthesis (so I don't buy that the carbon sink activity is lower), they are crap habitat for animals). More so, the wood from these forests is poor, it's soft, warps easily, not strong.

Back to the point of the 30 year cycle.. if our game plan is to bury a bunch of trees and regrow them in 30 years, and repeat that once or twice - the climate goals are not going to be achieved.

Another reason - small little trees burn easily. Trees need to get to a good height before they are "fire-proof". Trees in the NW drop their lower branches and their trunks grow thick bark allowing for the undergrowth to burn off & leaving the tree alone. This is where you can also get your rapidly growing "new forest". What's more though, if you cut down a forest, trees that are 10-20 years old are more akin to kindling, you wind up with a mega blaze. Where once there was a forest, you get a Savannah. This is happening in california, places that burned so hot, several feet of soil are burned, those forests are truly gone. If anything gets a foot hold again in those areas in the next decade, it'll all burn again before it's all big enough to survive a fire.

> If they become decks, paper, or other useful products in between, reducing usage of plastics things which emit carbon, so much the better.

The research from the "other side" notes that these "useful" products often go back into the atmosphere within a couple decades. [1] Compare that to the forest, which naturally buries its own trees as they die. Leaves fall, they form new soil along with other fallen trunks. Not to mention that trees do this on time scales of centuries, rather than decades. Point being, over time, the elevation of the forest floor grows. In sum, this idea of burying trees - it's already happening naturally.

[1] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08022022/do-young-trees-s...

For completeness, here is a reference for "young trees" sucking up less carbon, complete with a payed-for google ad ranking: https://www.ncasi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/NCASI22_For...