I do not agree. There are enough buffer systems so that you can produce carbon dioxide at time A at location B, which you can reintroduce into the cycle at time D at location E.
That is correct, nevertheless, the interval between times A and D cannot be made arbitrarily long. One should remain several orders of magnitude below the time scale on which greenhouse gases significantly contribute to the warming of the Earth by increasing the accumulated amount of energy from solar radiation. Otherwise, the buffer is irrelevant for the goal of "climate protection."
If that were not the case, you would have to tie a plant around your belly that immediately converts the CO2 you exhale back into O2...
It is about the overall balance. The amount I exhale and burn here can just as well be sequestered in Brazil or New Zealand. Since we consider CO2 over the entire atmosphere when it comes to global warming, only a global balance makes sense.
The "simultaneous" in my reply to Karsten referred to a time scale that reflects climate changes. So not on the scale of seconds or days; I was unclear in my expression there.
Nevertheless, the argument of the balance cannot be applied generally over arbitrary time periods, because the millions of years between the formation and combustion of coal and oil do not do justice to the problem.
Plant growth can now absorb the x tons of CO2 that you (hopefully without NOX and particulate emissions) have emitted. On the way there, algae in the sea also absorb y tons of CO2, so you are even allowed to emit more, namely x + y tons...
Caution with the sea. It is such an effective CO2 sink that this is not compensated by algae – not even remotely.