Not sure why you're downvoted because the answer to your question is definitely "no". Everything else, at the moment, is not much more than slides on a pitch deck.
I thought plants are notoriously bad at this in practice. Not because they can’t, but because they actually don’t need that much CO2, and are also rather finicky to keep alive. Other algae are better. And CO2 scrubbers exist for closed environments like subs and space ships.
Meat production is not carbon sequestering, it is carbon emitting. Most agriculture in general involves replacing more carbon sequestering natural growth with agricultural fields.
I think that would depends on what the natural growth is actually able to sequester, no? Not all areas clearcut for farmland were lush, quite the opposite actually with artificial irrigation bringing in the possibility of generating all that biomass.
There is carbon stored in the soil that tilling lets out.
And of course all of this is before you get into methane emissions from fertilizer, etc. and the fuel costs of transporting all these crops around as feed. I mean you can just look at the stats for carbon emissions from meat production.
No, meat production is still carbon emitting. What you’re thinking of is having cows manage land. For that to sequester carbon, you have to keep the cows alive and not be in a constant consume-supply cycle.
