Obviously absolute speculation on my part, but if they were truly doing what I suggested intentionally, part of the plan would need to be plausible deniability to avoid anti-monopoly issues, and also public sentiment nightmare. Killing your favorite shop out of incompetence doesn’t win good will, but you will still go there. Doing it out of malicious intent could have people in other states joining a boycott.
I’m in management, participated in the acquisition process of the company I’m at being acquired. At least at the 150mm/year revenue level there’s no one doing the shit I’m suggesting, no one is so competent. Cash on hand is bad , acquisition is an obvious way to deal with that. You’re spot on about skills though, 95% of management at every level is totally incompetent at the work required to actually do management shit. All the competent people leave as soon as they can because the work just got way harder and the money doesn’t follow.
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.