[FooHentai]

Not really - By converting pasture back to woodland you could potentially restore some of the released carbon from agriculture-driven destruction of old forest land. But it won't make up for the vast reserves of carbon that have been dredged up from deep underground and released to the atmosphere. If it's necessary to re-balance that withdrawal we're going to need to put something back down there, or come up with something novel.

[gshdg]

AFAIK, every other method requires massive electricity input; and we’re still not getting enough energy from renewables for that not to mean spewing more additional carbon than we sequester for each unit sequestered.

(Of course, trees also require massive energy input. The difference is that we don’t have to supply that energy.)

[n4r9]

Which leads back to my question: is it not possible that we may find a technological alternative to trees which scales better and does not require us to supply so much energy.

[gshdg]

I suspect the chemistry of it requires as much energy put into sequestering as is captured by releasing it. But... I could be wrong.