I think its worth noting the study did not actually make this claim, the news article did. I suspect the study authors would agree the term "language brain" or "math brain" is misleading.

For that <1% left as carbon, comes >75% released as carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, which needs to be recaptured. Tree capture by itself is already too inefficient -- you need to cover roughly the entire area of new mexico with trees to account for just one year of America's emissions. If you're only sustainably capturing 1% of that capture, we're nowhere near the order of magnitude necessary to be impactful on a global scale.

Further, even if we didn't face the issue of running out of land, we don't appear to be able to actually plant trees fast enough and well enough (many of the "millions of trees" planting projects, especially in developing nations, have had tree survival rates of under 10%)

Forests help and are part of the strategy, but fundamentally not moving the needle.

Agreed, "all" is an unfair word. Thanks. It's more accurate to say the majority of it is returned to the atmosphere. Less than 1% of burned fuel typically becomes organic carbon, but also not all of the biomass exposed will actually burn either. There's also trace amounts of other content and a lot of particulate matter (which one may or may not consider as carbon 'returned to the atmosphere' I suppose)

A common structure would be something like:

* Class A - voting shares, founders / controlling parties, etc. Typically small fixed share count (e.g. 100), not issued dividends directly but used to represent percent of controlling interest.

* Class B - non-voting shares, early stage employees, advisors, supporters, etc. Used to issue dividends.

* Class C - Same as class B but reserved for future issuance through more formal programs like ESOP when you're ready for that

Then you might have some preferred shares for investors, say class D and E for two investor groups and then a Class F for convertible debt (even bootstrapped companies can have owner / friends / family / seed / etc money, plus may want to not rule out raising at some point).

This is obviously a lot of classes, but by doing something like this you can separate control from economic upside, create different terms / stock agreements for different classes, keep room for future planning (things like ESOP), facilitate investor needs (they almost always want preferred shares), have more flexibility with fundraising or convertible debt, etc.

I'm not actually trying to argue that exactly six classes are necessary or optimal, but moreso that its common to want not just one single share class. Practically speaking I imagine that firm does six because they're trying to give a template that'll work for many of their companies and reduce the amount of per-customer customization. My company has less although more than one.

It takes a long time to reach that equilibrium and something can disrupt it along the way. Inevitably what happens is, as the amount of dead wood increases, so does the fire risk, and when it burns its all returned to the atmosphere. This is compounded by the fact that wildfire impact appears to be increasing significantly as the climate changes. Alternatively, humans cut it down because theres lots of large dense wood to grab.