Personally, I favor a model of direct government spending for CO2 capture (along with emissions regulations where appropriate). Carbon pricing ends up being either a tax or an opportunity for gaming or partisanship, and just adds needless complexity everywhere.

If we can move climate change from a political tool to a concrete technological problem, government can address it directly, the same as other infrastructure, and pay operators like this on a tonnage basis to extract carbon.

I agree that in principle it sounds good. The one issue I pick up on here is the old 'tragedy of the commons' - some countries are just not going to want to pay for it, meaning that other countries will be hugely economically impacted by this. As far as I can see, the only way to make this enforceable for the entire planet is for the largest consumer economies (US&EU) to include a carbon boarder tax where emissions can't be outsourced to other countries.

Multiple countries have tax incentives for carbon reductions already, such as the 45Q credit in the USA. Companies can outsource their reductions to CCS companies such as Heimdal. See e.g. https://www.cnet.com/news/google-facebook-stripe-have-a-925m...

[Disclosure: I've invested in Heimdal.]

Exactly, and I'm sure these incentives will start to increase in scale as the world sees the impact climate change will have on the wider economy.

The business model is a combination of governments and corporations. As of now, it is overwhelmingly corporations, but this is due to shift very soon.