Rather reinforces my point. Headline: "global forest loss over past 35 years has been more than offset by new forest growth"

Replacing the carbon storage of a single 100 metre mature rain forest meranti, and the diverse ecosystem below it by new growth requires how many square miles? It's a net loss for a century, perhaps more. Overall it's a colossal loss.

I note that article accounts for area covered only. No mention of the human activity, of the clear burning, size of trees, amount of other growth under the canopy etc.

Cutting growth could be carbon positive in some limited circumstances I guess. If it's used to build houses or other structures where the wood doesn't rot in terms of just the materials it /could/ be storage positive if the equivalent land is replanted.