[Reason077]

Alternatively we could also grow forests and, rather than burn them, harvest the wood for constructing furniture, buildings, etc, that will survive long-term. Hopefully, the wood can be recycled when the buildings reach their end of life rather than being burnt or decomposed.

But I suspect we'll need a lot of forests to compensate for the current rate of fossil-fuel use.

[Roodgorf]

As I understand it a push for more bamboo would be great for this. It's relatively quick growing and useful for a lot of various building materials. You could sequester a lot of CO2 in bamboo that would be fairly useful and take a lot less processing than other types of wood.

[chewbacha]

Bamboo is good too, corn captures a lot of carbon as well and dies off quickly, making it good for composting back into the ground. Grown in non-frosting areas you could re-sow year round with plants cultivated for each season.

[AstralStorm]

The trouble is that even bamboo requires marginally arable land which is at premium, fails to grow in cold conditions of most Europe and chunk of US and Russia. The area required to make a dent in CO2 sequestration would be a bunch of countries sized.

Secondary problem would be handling all of that junk. You cannot burn it, have to bury it instead.

[Roodgorf]

That's fair. Though I will say I don't think any single armed approach to sequestration will be anywhere close to reasonable, so exploring any avenue with decent margins, especially if there's any current practical value to it, seems like a smart idea.

What do you mean by "you can't burn it"? It would release some amount of CO2, but as another commenter points out, there would still be a non-zero amount of left over carbon, no?

[AstralStorm]

Well, exploring bad options is a waste of time, luxury we don't have unfortunately.

If you want to go full genetic engineered plants, there are better options out there.