We do not want to compensate the carbon emission but ensure a constant targeted, lower CO2 level. In order to do that, a.) we need to decrease the carbon emission and b.) increase carbon sequestration (compensation) and c.) storage.

a.) Using less energy and buying less products and services, and using higher proportion of renewable energy.

b.) Planting trees.

c.) Increasing forested areas, using wood in durable products, using more bioproducts.

The compensation alone has never worked out well in the past (rabbits and dingoes, floods and higher dams, etc).

CO2 emissions are naturally compensated within the carbon cycle. We all know about the carbon transfer  between atmosphere-biosphere-geosphere-hydrosphere. But under a recent project I found out that algae are responsible for the sequestration of 40% of the atmosphere CO2, also that there is a natural process to balance the organic and inorganic carbon in changes between atmosphere and oceans via algae. For sure that besides the natural processes there are many anthropic methods for CO2 sequestration.

I attach a fragment from a very interesting article that I recently read about this. 

"Biological processes in the ocean affect atmospheric gas composition through phase-state transitions of specific elements. For example, photosynthetic sequestration of inorganic C converts CO2 into organic solutes and particles with a corresponding decrease in the partial pressure in the surface layer. The resulting change in the partial pressure gradient at the air-sea interface potentially provides a driving force for the invasion of CO2 from the atmosphere into the ocean. Conversely, heterotrophic oxidation of organic solutes and particles leads to the formation of CO2, and the potential efflux of CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere. The export of organic material from the euphotic zone to the ocean interior, followed by biological oxidation of the organic C, leads to an inverse concentration gradient in inorganic C (that is, the concentration of inorganic C below the upper 500 m of the ocean is greater than that at the air-sea interface). In the contemporary ocean, this flux is ~16 Pg C per annum, or approximately one-third of the total ocean production."

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b0c6/e0fe28b9bdd742e9ad404eda0706dc15ffe9.pdf

We do not want to compensate the carbon emission but ensure a constant targeted, lower CO2 level. In order to do that, a.) we need to decrease the carbon emission and b.) increase carbon sequestration (compensation) and c.) storage.

a.) Using less energy and buying less products and services, and using higher proportion of renewable energy.

b.) Planting trees.

c.) Increasing forested areas, using wood in durable products, using more bioproducts.

The compensation alone has never worked out well in the past (rabbits and dingoes, floods and higher dams, etc).

Dear Mr

you can find your answer here on this article

If you want compensate SOM mineralization & respiration (both processes resulting in CO2 emissions) by C sequestration as biomass you have the battle lost; biomass, before or late, will disappear (fires, men, hervivore animals, pests, etc.). Cyril, if you want to sequester C for compensanting the CO2 emissions, please sequester C as SOC. SOC is recalcitrant and it is difficult to burn or eat, and its mean residence time ranges from thousands to millions of years. There is not another option...

Ken,

It is true that organic carbon is converted to CO2 by oxidation, but not for inorganic carbon. Fertilisation of the areas of the oceans where carbonaceius oozes form would draw down atmospheric CO2.