I also think that compared to some pie or at times mirror in the sky terra engineering projects "plants for the rescue" look more realistic at this point. >The

I also think that compared to some pie or at times mirror in the sky terra engineering projects "plants for the rescue" look more realistic at this point. >The biggest problem is the scale of it - to make a significant dent in global co2 you need to be pyrolysing a lot of wood The giant scale and use of land is one thing. But increasingly in many places the limiting factor be it for agriculture or forest or biomass plantations is water. While forests and vegetation have more than just a sponge effect, we should keep in mind that a scorched dry forest or a field burns easily. One may look at it as +/- net zero (what burns was absorbed by the plants we planted), it may be safer to go for high biomass yielding plants we can cut preferably more than 1x a year. In the case of fire only the carbon absorbed in the last say half a year would be released. And nasty plants such as Arundo can re-sprout after the fire. Or in a case of a prolonged drought given the right equipment one can just cut it down and get rid of the danger. *Edit*: cut one "While" too many