I think there is an initial case to be made here, but it is limited in scope. For some companies, that don’t have a directly tangible way to affect sequestration, buying Nori credits can make sense - and before more bio-based, and biogenic carbon storing materials are on the market, then builders could use this method.
But, in our opinion, we need to do everything we can to remove carbon from the atmosphere right now. Soil carbon is a big part of the picture for sure, but using the resultant crop carbon storage is another big way of doubling up on this effort. Using bio-based materials in buildings that last for generations, if not centuries, is going to be just as important to reverse the damage done, and not pile on more emissions. And, in fact, it is being realized that these materials can be better for comfort, energy efficiency and health for building occupants, so why wouldn’t we do this? So, yes, there is more value with less impact, and we should be striving for this higher level of performance in building, and leave the offset purchases to those that really have no other way. This would be real progress, not just some “bandage” covering up the real problems. The limits by Deutsch are imagined, and we are much more creative than what we are lead to believe by the current material supplier incumbents (for an example look how much Interface has changed through their efforts of lessening their impact!) Real progress lies in a circular, low-carbon economy on all fronts.