alpha-beta-soup
commented
2 months ago I definitely prefer carbon being noted as a commodity, and not having a class 2.1.5 Permanent carbon forest, due to both the nebulous idea of "permanent" and becase it would be better to indicate at the secondary level whether it is exotic or indigenous species. I'm not sure how some downstream software would cope with an infinite value, so perhaps I'd suggest a nominal value like 999.
Call me a cynic, but I'm not convinced that these will remain 'permanent' beyond about 100 years. Even in a best-case scenario, destructive events like wildfire, landslip and volcanic activity will likely impact many of these areas at least once over the next ~500 years, significantly enough to trigger a reclassification. As such I suggest that carbon forestry would better be captured under 2.1.1/2.1.2 along with an attribute noting carbon as the target commodity (on the same level as logs, woodchip etc). One could retain some sense of optimism by including a second attribute for planned harvest cycle frequency (n years, with 'infinite' allowed for carbon).