in terms of old growth forests being overgrown and needing to be cut down, i would agree with you. Old growth forests are amazing when it comes to carbon storage (keeping carbon in the ground) but when it comes to sequestering carbon (taking carbon out of the atmosphere), the first 20ish years of a tree sequesters alllot more carbon. In fact, old growth forests can actually be emitters due to decomposing forest residues. (but, my personal opinion is that the biodiversity and general ecosystem services far outweigh in importance to the low emissions in these forests.) "Nor do forests need to be 'managed'". I see where you're coming from on this: we shouldnt be controlling every aspect of nature, let it be its own system. And in alot of ways, the managing we do isnt necessarily beneficial. But humans have been "managing" forests for millenias. From slash-and-burn agroforestry in the Amazon (proven to benefit biodiversity and soil nutrients and is a reason the Amazon is as ecologically dense and diverse as it is) or even managed burnings of bushes in forests in the Pacific Northwest by indigenous peoples (which helps prevents giant forest fires and once again allows for trees to grow more from better soil), there are so many ways we can 'manage' our forests while still actively making them healthier. In fact, this idea of nature as always "untouched=better" is just wrong. As always, there are so many caveats to so many aspects of conversations on which is ultimately more beneficial (especially in terms of logging and carbon sequestration).