The point I want to address here is the sense of “biofuels” being different, and thus not having their carbon emissions count in emissions “inventories”. This is based on false assumptions, as I will explain, below:
The premise is that you start at the beginning of the industrial age and you have a balanced ecosystem where just as much CO2 is consumed as generated.
Then you add in the extraction of carbon from under the ground, which goes into industrial-age processes, and thus produce new CO2 contributions to the ecosystem. This is what created the CO2 imbalance in the ecosystem. Secondary “positive-feedback” amplification has increased the net CO2 emissions even further. Further warming would make it even worse.
The argument then is made that before the industrial age, you could go take a tree or three and chop them up and use them in the fireplace. The CO2 that came from them is part of the old, pre-industrial-age cycle. You grew it a little, but it was capable of absorbing the difference, so “it still can”. – NOT
That is a false assumption. If for no other reason than the 150 years of climate change have gotten to the place where there has been significant damage to the ecosystem. What used to be healthy soils under crops and meadows are now dependent on artificial fertilizers for any success at growth. The soils themselves are no longer alive and that absence of soil activity prevents major normal sequestration. The same thing is happening in our forests, which are now significant emitters of CO2 instead of sequesterers.
And, in the oceans, oxygen levels have decreased noticeably since the 1950s, indicating that the phytoplankton are no longer as productive as before – therefore the phytoplankton is doing less sequestration than before.