The two work together, it's hard to pin one or the other as 'better'. If we dropped to zero emissions overnight, we've likely already put so much carbon into th

The two work together, it's hard to pin one or the other as 'better'. If we dropped to zero emissions overnight, we've likely already put so much carbon into the atmosphere that we need active removal measures to draw it back down quickly and reduce the consequences. On the other hand, if we develop kick-ass capture solutions tomorrow but keep emitting at our current rate (or increased), the two will compete head-to-head and unless the capture method vastly outweighs the emissions, we're still on an increasing or (at best) steady-state situation with carbon in the atmosphere, neither of which give good outcomes. If you made a massive advancement in either field you would perhaps be able to forego the other. But on the more probable path of gradual progress, tackling both is best. I'm talking about all forms of carbon capture here BTW, not just direct. My personal opinion is that valid methods of re-sequestering atmospheric CO2 already exist and could be applied. However since there's money to be made in hawking tech-based solutions these are quietly sidelined in favour of new and sexy and (to the salesmen) profitable.