Are Conifers the Only Choice?

Yet another article from a forestry enthusiast claiming that, in order to make a serious dent in climate change, we have to a) accept that non-native conifers are better than native broadleaf trees because they grow quicker and b) agree that planning permission should be speeded up, enabling areas such as heathland and moorland to be populated with and replaced by pines (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/22/conifer-oak-britain-forest-change-to-meet-climate-targets). Trees do, in deed, remove substantial quantities of carbon dioxide from the air but so do other entities e.g. bogs and sea grasses. I personally would not like to see the animals associated with heathland displaced (I appreciate that these relatively treeless areas are human-generated but they do help generate positive responses to nature in a way that acres of conifers wouldn't). There have also been several cases, in recent times, when some of the monocultures of non-native conifers have had to be removed to counter fungal infections. I appreciate that broadleafs also get infections but they are seldom in such obvious monocultures. Conifers may be quicker to plant, faster growing  and can operate at higher densities than oaks et cetera but I think we are more likely to get a higher long-term benefit (in terms of carbon dioxide removal) from mixtures of species in appropriate locations.