>their production actually emits CO2 To be fair, so does the production of renewables. I think the bigger reason is that CO2 sequestration is more compatible

>their production actually emits CO2 To be fair, so does the production of renewables. I think the bigger reason is that CO2 sequestration is more compatible with human psychology. It reminds me of a study that looks at three ways to convince homeowners to conserve energy (sorry, this is from memory, I can't remember the actual study): Method 1: educate them about how much money they will save. -Result: Little to no effect on consumption Method 2: educate them about how much better it is for the environment -Result: Little to no effect on consumption Method 3: inform them that a majority of their neighbors are conserving energy -Result: A significant reduction in consumption Now that doesn't seem particularly rational to me, until you frame it as most people are simultaneously selfish and also social creatures. But that framework helps understand why carbon removal gets more coverage than conservation.