I wonder if anyone is researching genetically modified trees that specialize in carbon sequestration. Sort of like Golden Rice but for climate change.
which may be a side-effect of fighting forest fires and the campaign against logging. higher tree density == easier for fungus to spread. this is why I don't automatically believe anything from the "enlightened" progressive camp. back in the 80's, it was "Stop the Big Bad Loggers! Save the Forest!". Now, had they responsibly thinned the forest, used the timber for logging, that CO2 would be sequestered in homes and the fungus wouldn't have spread through the forest.
Even given that that is the case, I fail to see how that connects to your obvious disdain for the stance that maybe money isn't the most important thing here.
Lack of evolved resistance and predators are the key factors.
Before the 20th century, there were likely fewer campers setting trash on fire in the middle of a super dry forest. Or maybe not, come to think of it.
We are already lucky to have trees that grow fast enough and are well suited for construction uses. We are lucky to have sun and wind strong enough replace our unsustainable power sources. We're even lucky we didn't wipe out the ozone layer a few decades ago - only a chance of chemistry gave us enough time to respond.
The global climate and ecological crisis should be a wake up call to appreciate the vulnerability and suitability of the web of life that evolved us, not a mandate for ever more bold experiments on it.