+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.
Pretend we have 5 tonnes of co2 in the air. If I have an emitter, say someone wanting to burn a forest. That would emit 1 tonne. Or I have a sequestration process that would remove 1 tonne.
I can pay $X to either #1 or #2. In #1 case I stop the addition, e.g. 5 tonnes total. In #2 the forest gets burned so I'm up to 6 tonnes, but I've pulled down 1 tonnes so back to 5 tonnes.
As mentioned by other posters, there are a _ton_ of side benefits of the different approaches (burn forest for agriculture) vs other benefits of forests. But it seems like from a pure CO2 in atmosphere the two approaches should be similar?
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.