Ummm it’s called a forest, and we’re burning them down, not planting them.
For forests to be a meaningful part of a carbon capture discussion we’d need to be intentionally cutting down and regrowing some trees (which with current technology isn’t not something I’m actually suggesting). Once cut down, the tree matter would need to be stuck somewhere that wouldn’t return to the carbon lifecycle. All the oil we ever burned into the atmosphere over the last century had been firmly removed from the carbon cycle for hundreds of millions of years. Essentially all living plant matter draws carbon from the atmosphere/oceans, but most of that carbon goes back to the atmosphere eventually due to all the things that eat plants, the things that eat those things, the things that eat their waste, etc. Most of the chain after plants weren’t around when the organic deposits that eventually turned into oil were first laid. Heck, I’d bet none of the exact species that gorged on the carbon rich atmosphere are around now either, they’ve probably been outcompeted by organisms that adapted to lower carbon environments. Plants didn’t even decompose initially, because nothing had evolved to do that.
Basic carbon cycle science aside, in my opinion, bringing up forests when discussing carbon capture is exactly like talking about consumer recycling. It’s an easily digestible distraction away from the dozens of solutions that corporations don’t want you thinking about. Wikipedia says if we covered all available land in forests we’d sequester 20 years carbon at the current rate of consumption. Bear in mind, humans are using that land for food and housing, and we’re making every effort to grow the population even more.