> But the whole premise (i.e. the concern) is that there's too much CO2 as an atmospheric gas and it would be better if some of it were instead somewhere else.
Yeah, everyone gets that.
Burning wood is net zero. The point is we don't want net zero - we want net negative.
Nope, when you do that, you're moving CO2 into the atmosphere.
I get your point, "but what if you somehow made that wood explicitly to burn it", but the whole idea is to sequester carbon and keep it out, remove it. Fossil fuel's CO2 also came from the atmosphere, no sane person would suggest that burning it is net zero.
Yeah, everyone gets that.
Burning wood is net zero. The point is we don't want net zero - we want net negative.