I applaud any effort to reduce atmospheric carbon. That said, I see very limited effectiveness to take on the massive job ahead of us if we remain mired in the “pay for” mentality that demands a unit of currency be removed from a local economy prior to spending a unit of currency into that economy.

Much of the blame for this mentality can be attributed to the United States and the currency of trade status given the US dollar post-WWII that served to deny other nations' currency sovereignty as we moved into a post-gold standard world. This is far more about power than it is economics as we can see from the effects the EU has on weaker economies that gave up their sovereignty to take advantage of increased trade options.

They only end up draining their resources to fuel the consumption of stronger economies while any reward from that trade is devoured by debt denominated in much stronger currencies they cannot create or control. This subjects them to the whims of bond vigilantes and manipulation of their exchange rates. China saw this potential early in developing its trade with the US and pegged its currency to the US dollar as a defense.

As long as the required resources and labor are available to obtain any goal that a sovereign state decides is worthy of pursuing there is no need to drain off existing currency from its economy to spend for that goal. It can simply create what currency is needed without incurring extreme levels of inflation. It can decide to issue debt in its own currency if it wishes to, as long as it understands that it can never default and that the debt is a following operation to spending, not “funding” for that spending.

The domestic restraint to a sovereign fiat currency is always resources, not money, and many emerging economies in the world have the advantage of rich resources that can be deployed to service their domestic economies if they don’t get trapped in currency scams, such as the IMF, that peddle dollars it mostly pulls from its backside on-demand as a trade peg.