I see that a lot stated as a general rule, but in reality it depends. Have you ever looked on how many people are employed on taking salt out of sea water?
Sure, for most of the carbon we emit, it's easier to stop emitting it. But not all. We won't reach neutrality by cutting emissions alone.
Besides, we will need to take carbon out of the air to fix the climate after we stop breaking it.
What I'm saying is that there is a lot of low hanging fruit to pluck. A 1 billion dollar solar plant could generate revenue to fund research while cutting emissions. A 1 billion dollar solar plant wouldn't eliminate all carbon output, not by a long shot.
It's a real action that could be done in less than a few years.
Until we get to a point where more solar doesn't decrease carbon output, more solar is the way to go.
You know, the lowest hanging fruit right now isn't even energy generation. It is on insulating/ventilation of buildings. Despite that all the action is on energy generation, and for good reasons. The only of the low hanging problems that we really solved is illumination, and that took many years after we got a solution that was better than the older tech on every single way.
The same way, we can't wait for the generation problem to be solved before we start exploring the solutions for capture. We have to do everything all the time; just not with the same intensity.
Sure, for most of the carbon we emit, it's easier to stop emitting it. But not all. We won't reach neutrality by cutting emissions alone.
Besides, we will need to take carbon out of the air to fix the climate after we stop breaking it.