But you can grow trees and capture carbon anyway, and not burn them.
A) is objectively the superior option, because buying said biofuel puts an economic incentive on the guy making the biofuel to keep capturing more CO2 to make more biofuel, resulting in ~about carbon neutrality. B) releases a bunch of CO2 that has been sequestered since long before you or I ever existed.
If you want to pay purely to sequester carbon, go for it, buddy. Nobody's stopping you from going to your local tree farm, buying a tree, and burying it. That's your perogative. But your buried tree doesn't get me to my Jack the Ripper street tour or whatever.
Maybe this will help you think about it:
If I drove over to the supermarket and back, and then planted a tree that would sequester an equal amount of carbon to the amount I released driving to the supermarket, would you agree that I am offsetting/reducing my emissions?
Do you know the reason why England set up the Jamestown settlement? Because they wanted to make glass. Why set up a glassmaking operation in America? Because they ran out of trees in England for fuel for the glass furnaces.
A lot of places in the world have been deforested for fuel - and this was before coal. Do you really think biofuels from wood, cow fat, and algae ponds are going to make any difference? It's just a fantasy.
In contrast, digging up coal has no carbon recapture stage. I dig up coal, it gets burned, releasing C02, I dig up more coal.
No one's saying biofuel is carbon negative. But it's pretty close to carbon neutral.