When carbon counting becomes ridiculous

Another Sciencedaily article. Here's the upshot: Trees rot in water slower than in air. This means that the carbon they are storing doesn't get released into the environment as fast.

What's the suggestion here? That we fill our rivers with dead trees? Seems to me that dead trees that rot and "release their carbon into the environment" are basically becoming plant food for other trees at a higher rate of speed. Are we that hungry to save carbon that we want to starve other trees? I mean, this article reaaaallly stretches towards the global warming point. Dead trees in rivers nor dead trees on the forest floor are the root (ha!) of our carbon problems. I think we can find better fall (ha! again) guys than that.

However, it is cool, science-wise, that there are some 14,000 year old trees still unrotted in the waters underneath the forests of Missouri.