It’s been a bit since I did a deep dive on this (thanks AirMiners), but my understanding is that we have to get to net zero and sequester large amounts of carbon currently in the atmosphere to avoid some of the worse climate scenarios. It’s not either/or. We’re past the point where cutting to 0 in a decade or two yields acceptable outcomes. But to your point, sequestration is much more expensive than reduction, so cutting down new emissions is going to have to be the vast majority of the reduction.
And yeah, forestry credits are really fraught with problems, but they’re much, much cheaper than real sequestration, which is why stuff like this always offers them. There is some time-value of sequestration in the short term, though.
Yup, the latest IPCC report relies heavily on carbon capture in a lot of the predicted 'limitation' scenarios.
We do not see carbon removal as an excuse to continue polluting or not reduce emissions. It's a "both" situation and we go even further to say we need many different kinds of removal as there isn't a "silver bullet" that will solve decades of burning fossil fuels.
These will involve natural and technological methods to restore a bit of stability to the climate.
And yeah, forestry credits are really fraught with problems, but they’re much, much cheaper than real sequestration, which is why stuff like this always offers them. There is some time-value of sequestration in the short term, though.