The idea is theoretically viable, if you’re actually paying for carbon sequestration. You emit X tons of carbon, you sequester X+Y tons of carbon (where Y > 0), that’s a net win.
The problem is that no-one is doing that because it’s several orders of magnitude cheaper to offer carbon credits to “save” forests that no-one was planning on cutting down. You get a clean conscience at a reasonable cost, some middlemen get richer, the planet gets warmer.
The idea is theoretically viable, if you’re actually paying for carbon sequestration. You emit X tons of carbon, you sequester X+Y tons of carbon (where Y > 0), that’s a net win.
The problem is that no-one is doing that because it’s several orders of magnitude cheaper to offer carbon credits to “save” forests that no-one was planning on cutting down. You get a clean conscience at a reasonable cost, some middlemen get richer, the planet gets warmer.