isn't sequestering carbon a good thing?

I think that's what he tried to say, if you recycle paper the carbon gets somehow released. But, in theory, the recycled paper will still come out as paper, thus carbon will still be there.

> in theory, the recycled paper will still come out as paper, thus carbon will still be there.

If paper never gets recycled it will continue accumulating in the landfill at a fast pace, so more carbon gets trapped over time.

If paper gets recycled the amount of captured carbon will be that trapped in the paper currently circulating. Even if some paper gets eventually trashed, it will not be at the same rate.

Recycling paper harms climate.

But what about the trees cut down to make new paper? As more new paper is needed if less is recycled.

That's the whole point of carbon sequestration: grow a tree, cut it down, bury it, grow a new tree in the same place.

Assuming that new trees will indeed be planted.

Yes. And the more paper gets recycled the less carbon gets sequestered. Recycling paper is harmful.