Deforestation of Argentinian and Brazilian agriculture tops that any day.

Phytoplankton loss does that too.

There’re important differences.

When you just burn a forest, you release carbon that was in the atmosphere a few years or decades ago. Those trees would die eventually, and most of the carbon would go to the atmosphere anyway.

When you dry a swamp and burn a peat bog, you release carbon that was in the atmosphere centuries ago. Under normal circumstances, that carbon would stay underground for millennia.

Plus the burning of forests in Indonesia to make room for farming palmoil. We're all in this together.

That's not from sequestered carbon, so over a decade it is probably zero net CO2 contribution - forests grow and sequester carbon, then they burn and release it, rinse, repeat.

Now, the methane released from underneath thawing permafrost - that's actually dangerous - but there's not much that can be done to manage that to my knowledge...

Large parts of the territory affected by the fires were once peat bogs:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dan_Hammarlund/publicat...

The carbon in those was sequestered; under normal circumstances, it would remain buried for millennia.

Burning renewables (wood) is fundamentally different than burning fossil fuels.

Most of the territory affected by those fires was peat bogs.

Those are modern analog of those carboniferous-period forests.

While some people consider peat as renewable, the renew rate is very slow. Until burned, there was a lot of carbon stored for quite some time.