The context is that someone suggested that covering it up is only temporary, right? That would depend on local conditions, but presumably in some places it's tr

The context is that someone suggested that covering it up is only temporary, right? That would depend on local conditions, but presumably in some places it's true (due to eg how the topsoil is eroding in that area). You suggested that the cost would be basically infinite because of how many people it displaces. I'm pointing out that your assumptions may have been too conservative, and that it's probably merely hundreds of billions spread over decades. Is that a good use of resources? I don't have the data to form that opinion, and I'm not going to gather it for a casual Internet conversation, so I just don't know.