Overpopulation is an issue that has to be aknowledged but the earth would be able to sustain a lot more people if we wouldn't pollute as much.

The main problem is that all the fossil fuel is carbon that has been trapped in a non-gaseous state (solid for coal, liquid for oil) for millions of years. Stuff that, under normal circumstances, would probably never get released back into the atmosphere.

So, for all intents and purposes, the only way to try and be carbon neutral is to offset your fossil fuel consumption. Not only trees, but also algae, which have a hard time thanks to all the shit we throw in the ocean, plus the overfishing. As others pointed, companies love throwing the term around to smoke their endless destruction in the name of FUCK TOMORROW, PROFITS NOW!

Net zero is less of a number and more like a notion. Is existing in our environment with the least climatic influence a good thing? One way to achieve that would be lethal pandemic. We don't know what our true impact is and may never know. Net zero in practical terms means reducing energy consumption and pollution. It inevitably implies reducing the population and finding an alternative to capitalism. We may have to revert to a more primative life whether we want to or not.

It’s not going to happen.

I think your math is wrong, most websites I see say 7 or 8 trees produce all the air you breathe, so that's perfectly reasonable.

Offsetting the rest of your consumption is another thing, but not something a single person can do. An average person doesn't personally produce a crazy amount of CO2, it's industrial and excessive consumption that does the bulk of it.

Build nuclear power plants, problem solved.