The way to look at it is: there are two carbon cycles. A long cycle (proto-plankton dies, gets carbonized over millions of years, is pumped up, burned, and ends up in the atmosphere), and a short cycle (tree dies, is burned / rots, and ends up in the atmosphere).

If all we do is burn trees, there is no problem. We're not adding CO2 to the atmosphere that wasn't there before. The problem is that the stuff we pump up was not there before.

So capturing in trees is at best a temporary solution. In 20 / 30 years that tree dies and is burnt or rots, and so the CO2 is released again. At best it may buy us some time while we learn to do with less oil. But it's crazy talk to do a weekend in Thailand and then "offset it with trees". That's like saying "I was broke, but I found $100 on the street, now life can continue as before".

I won't even mention the fact that large parts of the "offset economy" are essentially fraud. People that own a swath of forrest declaring "I was going to cut these 10 km2 of forrest and prevent any new tree on it, but now I won't" just so that they can get carbon credits. Even if it is painfully obvious that they never intended to do that.

For most people the break-even is longer than that. Net-metering is an unjustified gift from non-paneled ratepayers to ratepayers with solar panels.

Planting trees is also a form of carbon capture. They literally capture carbon from the environment and release oxygen. It's as if they natural evolved to counterbalance animals.

Sadly, when people talk about "carbon capture" techniques, they're never talking about planting trees.

It's not a long list, and among them is pumping sulfur in the stratosphere. It stops sounding so absurd compared to what's viable, nevermind politically.