Isn't the net result the same? Is it better to pay (for example) $500 to remove a tonne of CO2 from the atmosphere, or to pay $100 to prevent the same amount of CO2 from being emitted in the first place?
If CO2 removal costs us more than emissions reduction technologies, isn't it a false economy?
If CO2 removal costs us more than emissions reduction technologies, isn't it a false economy?