I was going to point out the difference between carbon that's going round in short cycles (food/wood/peat/us etc), compared to carbon released from fossil fuels that's 350 million years old, laid down over millions of years under conditions we wouldn't recognise.Why would you compare food & life with fossilised carbons ?
Do we really need to sequester Carbon anyway ? No, we don't. The reality is temperatures could rise several degrees in the UK and the net result would be a decrease in Carbon usage.
The problem - if any - is in areas of the world of already high heat. I don't see ANY evidence that world governments are concerned or doing anything to reduce temperatures in those regions.
Even building a canal and salt lake inland would help.
IMHO if someone cries Wolf and then does nothing to solve the problems - there is no problem. There is an alterior motive.
I'd point out another VERY obvious discrepancy with the cr@p about Woodland creation. IF Carbon Sequestration is important, then wood for building materials would be a priority. So Carbon could then be sequestered in property for 100s of years.
That's not happening.
But then you got to the 'denialist' bit, and my eyes glazed over.
with you...... I'm out.