Power Station Captures CO2 from Flue Gases

So I have one question... Is it more green (or cost effective for that matter) to capture the carbon (i.e there is some CO2 created in mining the ores, making the materials, shipping, manufacturing, etc, along with the whole process of creating and using the technology) OR is it more green to buy up, forest, and protect a plot of land?

It isn't rocket science to estimate how much carbon the now forested area would capture, and do it an amount that would EXCEED the amount emitted from the power plant.

If you're gonna go "green", why not just go green?

If you're gonna go "green", why not just go green?

Because that is not what is popular plus it would mean relying on people using what was once called common sense. Using common sense and letting nature deal with what nature deals with best is not good for gaining political or business power and influence.

Nature does its job for free and doesn't care about the wants, wishes, or concerns of humans and their beliefs or agendas which is why the "real green" is never going to fly.