I have a better idea. Leave the coal in the ground. You get the same result with literally no work!

Way too reasonable, it'll never happen.

Building with it is a lot more effective as there's economic incentive in preventing it from decaying back to base elements

Good point.

Wood is not dense enough for this to be cost effective.

If a woodpile isn't dense enough, then surely building homes and furniture out of wood isn't dense enough either.

Can you think of a better way to store carbon!

Not very dense compared to the cost of digging a big hole in the ground with Caterpillars and the number of truck loads of pellets you would need to bring in. This is all assuming that just covering the wood over with dirt is enough to keep it sequestered, a big pile of biomass could start emitting methane.

> Can you think of a better way to store carbon!

BECCS like they referred to in the article.

You could burn it – the ash from burning a tree takes up only a fraction of the original volume.

Don’t know if this is sarcasm, but burning the wood releases most of the carbon dioxide back into the air. The ash is just the unburnt carbon residue and other leftovers.

Yes, it was a joke. Sorry for that.

Jokes aside, you could partially burn it, into charcoal, then grind down the charcoal, soak it in urea, and mix it with soil. The charcoal bits remain stable in soil for quite a long time, and helps retain plant nutrients.