This wouldn't be a plus point in the current negative energy scenario. You probably don't see that as a scientific statement, but it is, just new science that becomes apparent when we notice energy added to the planet is mathematically positive (Only solar), and energy subtracted is mathematically negative. Currently all money is issued only on mathematically negative energy, and more energy flows by that than any other means, because money is energy.
When we convert it all to energy it becomes clear that what we have is a system of destruction. We actually monetise only destruction. It's true plants reduce temperature by removing part of the sunlight that is applied to the planet, and converting that to things other than heat. But the trouble is that it is heavily outweighed by what we take that wasn't heat, and convert it to heat, trees from the Amazon, for example.
The reason those trees are taken, is because it's usually the only possibility of getting the energy in the form of money that the locals need to survive in a probably financially deprived environment. Taking the trees despite local and national laws prohibiting it, is the only alternative they have, to robbing their neighbors or relatives, to get the money to eat.
So they are energy slaves via money, they don't have any choice but to take the trees.
The money they get for the trees seems substantial to them relative to what they might make from legal work which wouldn't pay their bills anyway, but it's still much less than the energy value in the trees they are selling, usually to well heeled Western investors, who then go on to make more profit from it.
In the scheme you are suggesting, the wages paid out to workers in those new jobs you mention would be paid by employers who need to pay investors profit, and that energy of profit has to come from somewhere, if not from the exploitation of trees in the Amazon then it might be from energy profit made by supply of utilities energy or oil or gas extracted from the planet and refined, etc. Either way it's much more energy extracted and thrown to heat than can be gained by the planting of new trees by the new workers doing that job.
So it's a hiding to nothing due to the economics.
Profit itself is a dishonest energy lie which is directly geared to temperature rise, the energy in profit has to be always extracted from the planet and mostly thrown to heat.
Its the same issue as trying to clean carbon by profit driven work, it's an attempt to correct destruction by yet more destruction, all it does is accelerate the temperature rise, because in the end it's more profitable business done, more profit, more temperature rise.
Doomers seem to know this but their solution appears to be to try to downsize the population, which is also no solution, it just pushes the inevitable back a little, whist removing part of the population that could be valuable in a positive energy scenario, but ultimately we end up with the same result as long as all is negatively powered, extinction of all life, not just humans, because we've already used up most of the planetary energy resources.
Conventional science appears to avoid this kind of analysis which questions profit and finds it at fault, because science itself is funded by mostly for profit interests. Nobody else has the money to pay for it, and investors won't invest in anti-profit research.
So we are stuck on negative energy for now, and in this mode we can only destroy, and thus heat the planet.
The only way out is to issue free solar indexed stimulus.
With that everyone could be paid to not do the work of extraction, and there would be much more funds available to do the work of reforestation, and all activity would be reduction of heat in any case because we would be working with positive energy, our net activity in that mode would be creation.