A while ago I spent far too long trying to work out if carbon sequestration through wood (charcoal, in this case) was feasible.

The answer is, partly. We probably couldn't fix global warming, but we probably could negate a reasonable chunk of emissions.

https://concretecuts.xyz/articles/biochar/

In 3 millenias: « Woah! Free chopped wood for our furnaces, from just a dozen feet underground! » — Wait, exactly what we did.

Is there a silent /sarcasm tag at the end of this comment?

It doesn’t read as sarcasm to me. The bulk of the ideas seem “in the right direction”, just with a bunch of gaps and uncertainty. The gaps and uncertainty are where research and conversation live. I read the comment in that spirit.

It's carbon capture isn't it? Use fast growing wood, make furniture by gluing flakes together. If it gets tossed, it just sits underground.

Need to make sure it does not rot (releases methane), or get burned. And that the environmental cost of transportation does not outweigh the benefit. But otherwise it is a potential mechanism, I guess.

Assuming it does stay underground, instead of rotting away in a landfill. GGP said "non-compostable", but I presume they meant "not suitable for composting", and not "physically unable to decay".

My brilliant crackpot roommate told all of us that he's actually the one saving the planet when he prints a ton of paper and not recycle it, ten years back. We all looked at him weird but eventually I realized how right he was.