What the OP is talking about is that we brought up a lot more forest back from below ground than we could possibly plant above. Below ground are many generations of forests, above we can only have one, unless we invent vertical stacking or create hundreds of meters tall trees (now I would be all for it Some real tree-houses like in fantasy movies!).
The best storage is to leave what already is underground right there, until/unless there is plenty of energy to influence the carbon cycle above ground by putting it back deep below with technology without requiring the energy to be supplied by even more below-ground-carbon.
The usefulness in growing trees is not in their ability to put oil back in the ground. They're useful by themselves. Nobody is under the impression that planting trees, or any other single initiative, will fix our climate issues in isolation.
Uhm... this thread has a specific context, which is CO2. So your comment makes no sense.
Would it be too much to ask to make replies that take the context into consideration, instead of using "autobot" mode posting generic standard text based on keywords?
The best storage is to leave what already is underground right there, until/unless there is plenty of energy to influence the carbon cycle above ground by putting it back deep below with technology without requiring the energy to be supplied by even more below-ground-carbon.