Right, so if you manage to start a healthy forest it is a carbon sink... as long as the biomass is increasing. After some decades it flattens out consuming land forever, but being mostly carbon neutral.
So to offset a non-zero amount of carbon emissions you have to steadily increase the number of acres of forest. Unfortunately this puts pressure on other things like farming, which causes them to be more energy intensive to get enough density.
From what I can tell the answers are things like nuclear, solar, and wind. Covering every parking lot with solar would be a good start.
Should perhaps add that the 2GT/y thing was in the context of tolerating a peak of 1.7 degrees and still being able to reach 1.5 by 2100 (since no scenario can stay below 1.5). It was not a bout a sustainable compensation for current emissions, if that was the impression.
(And expect us to need 100-1000GT extracted by 2100 depending on how quickly we get rid of emissions.)