Pretty confident these numbers are wrong.

https://www.iea.org/fuels-and-technologies/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage

We're currently capturing about 45 megatons annually.

https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021/co2-emissions

Meanwhile globally we emit 31.5 gigatons or 31,500 megatons.

That means we need to scale up 700X to capture it all. We also want to scale up beyond that to become net negative as well to reverse climate change even.

This sounds like a lot, but most plants today are experimental development plants so we haven't really begun scaling it. For comparison in the USA alone we have almost 12,000 grid scale power plants, so scaling to 10s of thousands of carbon capture plants which is what it would take to reverse climate change isn't actually that infeasible at all. There's currently a ton of money flowing into developing carbon capture.

Obviously reducing emissions will also go a long way, but we do need to go carbon negative to reverse damage.

Most importantly trees release carbon when they decompose so we really have to bury it underground, which means we need to pay people to do that. Trees alone are not a solution to climate change unless you plan on burying the tree deep underground to capture its carbon.

Edit: I see from reading the article it's referring to all capture methods including all trees, land management, etc... Things that don't easily scale sadly. Meanwhile new technology (carbon capture facilities) only accounts for 0.1% of that.