Why don't we decouple climate/sustainability expenses from the economic system?

In the carbon capture area, for instance, there are a large number of schemes that involve activities carried out over a large area of land that all have one thing in common: it's impossible to measure how effective they are.

For instance there is a scheme to crush certain minerals and leave them on beaches, maybe that captures some carbon in the ocean. There are also endless schemes to tie carbon capture to land use (e.g. they told you they wouldn't cut the trees but what will you find if you visit the site 30 years later?)

Contrast that to some scheme where you catch CO2 out of an aniline stripper and inject it into a saline aquifer; you can measure the CO2 going in the way the natural gas company measures CH4 going into your house.

"Unlimnited funds" also scares me because of this: money is a tracer for natural resources. Ecological Engineer Howard Odum (brother of ecologist Eugene Odum) attempted to trace all energy back to the sun:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergy

You can do more detailed work for major energy flows such as a biofuel plant, but at some point you get into the weeds unless you assume the average dollar spent in the economy causes an average amount of environmental impact.

Thus the $6 bottled water that comes in a super-thick bottle and was shipped across the world just can't possibly be sustainable. It's a good starting assumption that something cheap is better for the environment is better than something expensive and then add sustainability considerations on top.

(e.g. if you pay Garth Brooks $50 M in record royalties he puts gas in his pickup truck; pay some lady in Africa $5 for Shea Butter she ground and she puts kerosene in her lamp.)

This doesn't even touch the billions of low consumers who most likely would prefer to be consuming more, not less, of those resources.