Yeah, that ain't helpful at all. They should take a moment (since they're already taking time to comment in the first place) to explain why technological carbon capture really isn't a valid solution all by itself. It's extremely expensive and not very efficient/effective overall. Definitely should not be just ignored outright though, because many technological inefficiences have been overcome in the past, and this one could possibly be also. It can still be a part of the overall solution even in it's current state. Just ain't likely to be some "magical cure-all" anytime soon. We must do other things that are already known to be efficient and effective while we're still able.
> Guess they aren't aware that trees are not immortal.
Trees don't need to stay alive to maintain the carbon captured during their lifetime. If they fall (or are cut down) and are buried, the carbon they contain can stay captured pretty much indefinitely.