Summary/Abstract
This article compares CCS and air travel, considering both public policy and property law. The article will conclude that, because the ability to use CCS to combat climate change is important, the law should facilitate CCS, just as it facilitates air travel. Thus, the owner of Whiteacre should not be able to block a CCS project by obtaining injunctive relief or withholding consent to subsurface migrations of CO2. On the other hand, while it might be impractical to require compensation for every landowner beneath each flightpath, it would not be impractical to require compensation to landowners for the intrusion of CO2. Further, multiple practical models already exist for such compensation. Accordingly, such compensation should be required.