planting trees isn't a realistic carbon sequestration. it just delays when the carbon is released (dead decaying tree). The only proper carbon sequestration is to capture it and stick it back in the ground from where it came. there's obvious challenges with that.

Standing forests are perpetual carbon storage. At some point a given area of forest reaches maturity/stability and the rate of tree decay is more or less matched by the rate of tree growth. Once in a while the forest burns down, grows back and reaches maturity again, and once again becomes stored carbon. On average, an area of land that is forest will be carbon storage (as well as wildlife habitat etc).

Trees are great: solar-powered, recursive, self-assembling, carbon sequestration tech.

Forests can't be the only solution to carbon, because of the scale of emissions, but they can be a fraction of the solution.

You're describing temporary storage. That's very different from sequestration. If you don't do something like bury charcoal, it's more or less irrelevant to trying to drain a continuing large supply of carbon.

I agree with your reply. As long as the amount of stored carbon by the forest increases, it is a valid form of carbon sequestration, and, IMHO, the most beautiful.

Regarding other methods, people should Google for: norway carbon sequestration. Note: The volumes are very limited -- not enough to burn coal as your primary energy source, then capture all the CO2 and pump it underground.

To be clear, I am not shilling for non-forest/peat based carbon sequestration. To me, it is mostly a green washing game by big oil, gas, and utility firms to delay action and avoid responsibility.

They all scale if somebody goes and scale them up.

It just a money problem, if the technology has money momentum scaling up issues will also be solved with the same momentum. The collective west just decided nope on nuclear. Which i think will not bite them in their asses now that China and Russia are moving forward.

I'd say that the immediate problem is the electricity generation.

There is no reason at all to scale carbon capture before the electricity generation is mostly carbon-free. As there is no reason at all to scale storage before most of the generation is intermittent.

What leads to ignorant people deciding that since nobody is doing it, it must be impossible.

If you're only using the carbon-intensive power sources as backup power for calm cloudy days, then you don't necessarily need great sequestration -- the expensive crappy natural gas sequestration plants "work" but you wouldn't want to run your whole grid with them. They'll do just fine in a low-carbon world;

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/1/17416444...