Interesting that you mention spooky action at a distance!
As an erstwhile scientist I find it hilarious that the “spooky action at a distance” of the free market is both conspicuously spooky and absent from any kind of measures to address the absolutely catastrophic changes the climate is undergoing.
In contrast a free-market appears to been used to buy votes to allow the process of ignoring the future to continue.
There is simply no rational pricing that can explain why we would knowingly destroy the climate in this manner.
Therefore I’m forced to conclude there for that irrational pricing is the best fit.
So yes, government should definitely pay.
And I would also suggest that they should pay out in a wide range of very innovative schemes and let people choose the best loophole for optimising those carbon loot boxes.
For example, if the removal of carbon can only be proven by doing a full carbon audit of a given process chain then it’s going to be highly debatable.
That will be the case for some solutions such as better land management and planting trees etc.
That’s fine: just don’t pay too much for any one scheme.
Remember the environment is literally priceless. As Jeff Bezos points out: “Earth it really is the best planet: trust me on this one'
So, if we consider that we therefore have a future pot of infinite value from the hypothetically saved environment to invest, really we should be going hell for leather paying out subsidies on all mitigation, sequestration and remediation techniques.
The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago the second best time is today
This year I personally intend to find the planting of a dozen or more trees as one of my charitable contributions, as I have done for the past three years.
I would encourage the readers of this article to consider what their contribution will be.