It's insufficient - there's a cap on how much carbon we can stop emitting, and maxing that out will not be enough to halt climate change. Agreed though, in the sense that we should fully fund the cheap options while also funding research on going carbon negative.
+0 tonnes is not equivalent to -1 tonne of C02 emission, because maths.
Reducing current C02 levels is more difficult and expensive than just reducing C02 output, and has a greater impact on overall reduction, but both are moves in the right direction.
> +0 tonnes is not equivalent to -1 tonne of C02 emission, because maths.
Right, but we're talking about -1 tonne (reducing emissions) vs -1 tonne (taking carbon out of the atmosphere) and last I checked, -1 tonne is equivalent to -1 tonne.
> Reducing current C02 levels is more difficult and expensive than just reducing C02 output, and has a greater impact on overall reduction
It makes sense to me that it's easier/cheaper to reduce C02 output (at least as long as there is lots of low-hanging fruit), but it doesn't make sense to me that one would have a greater impact than the other.
If you look at "reducing 1 tonne" of emission as -1 to the current emission output, sure. But if you see it as +0 to the current C02 levels, it's different math.
-1 tonne (active output) is not equivalent to -1 tonne (overall C02 levels)
It's splitting hairs over what we consider to be better. Either is an improvement that I am happy to see.