I imagine it would need to be government funded, not for private enterprise. If the order of magnitude of the costs they mention are to be taken at face value ($80M/year), for the entire world, it would be absolutely trivial for the government to fund, so I don't think expect any commercial enterprise would necessarily be forced to align this with its mission.

> For the entire world, it would be absolutely trivial for the government to fund

Which government? Is that some hypothesised World Government?

The UK Government runs a lot of the forestry in this country. It is run as a commercial timber operation. The Brazilian and Indonesian governments appear to be committed to commercial exploitation of enormous amounts of old-growth rainforest timber. The Polish and Hungarian governments are also committed to logging old-growth.

There's no time left for this kind of dreaming.

> Which government? Is that some hypothesised World Government?

I meant the US government. But you can insert lots of other governments in there, including the UK like you mentioned.

> There's no time left for this kind of dreaming.

Nobody's dreaming. I'm just talking about the feasibility, not claiming anything about the likelihood.

I don't know what kind of construction materials your house is made of, but most wood construction doesn't just vaporize into the atmosphere as CO2 unless it's burnt down, which is considered an undesirable outcome to be prevented.