Who is `The people` here ? The taxpayers ? That's entirely possible, and it would probably be the only scalable way to fund it (treat "the atmosphere" as an inf

Who is `The people` here ? The taxpayers ? That's entirely possible, and it would probably be the only scalable way to fund it (treat "the atmosphere" as an infrastructure that we have to maintain without directly benefiting from it.) What I mean in my second post is that a private investor can put money into a forest, plant the trees, and recoup some of the costs by sell the fruits. This is a silly image to tell that if you're a private investor (no insult here), and want to sequester CO2, you either "need to have CO2 sequestered as a byproduct of a project that makes money ; or need to have money generated as a byproduct of a project that sequesters CO2." If you're a public investor (aka "the handler of taxpayer's money"), or a charity (aka "the handler of rich people's spare money"), the deal is not the same.