No, because the plant you burned would have pulled more CO2 from the atmosphere if it had stayed alive, there's plenty of CO2 around already to feed other plants in the mean time. So the net effect is negative. If you can't grasp the logic, think about what happens if you burn all the plants. Some will grow back, but not all.
>If you can't grasp the logic, think about what happens if you burn all the plants. Some will grow back, but not all.
The only way they don't grow back is if desertification happens or humans start using that area. Otherwise, the plant life returns on its own. Chernobyl is overrun by plants.
No. If it fully decomposes at some point, arguably. But plants are eaten by various organisms (= C becomes part of the organism), are used for building houses, become fossilized. All of these make these "cycle" claims invalid.
> The only way they don't grow back is if desertification happens or humans start using that area.
No. Plants can also become extinct (= no seeds survive) or stop growing in some places due to more aggressive competition.
That organism will soon die and decompose as well. Fossilization is rather uncommon nowadays. The only one of those where we could and do put a lot of carbon is buildings. However, even those end up rotting over time.
Most of the coal formed at a time where lignin didn't break down. We don't live in such a time. We can't repeat the same process. It doesn't really matter whether the carbon is released back into the atmosphere in 2, 5, 50, 100 years. It'll still be released and contribute. Stashing carbon into those forms is not a solution.
The entire industry is predicated on growing a predictable mass of plants per unit area. If we can’t do that then we have much bigger problems than the CO2 cycle.
And you believe this can be done in a CO2-neutral way, even if we assume the CO2 is recovered quickly and never accumulates in the atmosphere? Ridiculous, modern agriculture is far from even "low emission"...