True, but the point is that any carbon on the surface of the planet is going to wind up in the atmosphere as a GHG at some point in the near future. So all of the extra carbon from fossil fuels needs to be captured and returned to a position where it cannot get back into the atmosphere without creating more GHG's than it would be removing. Burning a millions of acres of wood every year, will likely produce a fair amount of GHGs. The machinery to grind millions of acres of burned trees into tiny bits will produce GHG's and disturbing the soil releases carbon back into the atmosphere.

Now, I'm just spit balling here, I'm not a scientist or researcher or involved in any thing important so my criticism is mostly based on me following a train of thought of my "digs in the dirt looking for potatoes for a living" self. It could be possible that the math works out that doing all of that would produce less GHG's that would be sequestered and the net effect would be a positive. It could also be possible that the net positive would be large enough to be worthwhile.