In the interest of rescuing this thread...yes, burying wood can be a form of carbon sequestration, as long as it’s buried in a way that prevents it from rotting (and thus releasing its carbon back into the atmosphere). This—albeit on a much slower timescale—is basically how fossil fuels came to exist in the first place. In addition, there’s plenty of waste wood from industrial lumber processes that could be a good candidate.
The problem isn’t the science; the problem is the economics. You can use waste wood for a number of things (including burning it for energy) that you can presumably sell at a profit (or at least mitigate a loss). Sending waste wood to a regular landfill will just allow it to decompose and release its carbon. So there would have to be a dedicated infrastructure for burial of wood. We have similar dedicated infrastructures for special waste streams—in particular, recycling centers and hazmat disposal centers—but in the first case, the end product can, at least in theory, be resold at a profit, and in the second case, there is a clear immediate danger to public health. With wood burial, neither of those apply, so there’s no economic incentive.
Which means that an incentive must be artificially supplied: then the issue becomes political. Probably the easiest way to incentivize carbon sequestration is through a carbon tax, and wood burial could be rolled into this as a specialized form of sequestration. If the legal framework allows it (e.g., carbon offset trading), you could conceivably see companies pop up that grow and bury a fast-growing plant like bamboo and sell the offsets at a profit to major polluters.