I'm not sure you understand how much baked-in catastrophe we already have in store for us. Even with 0 new emissions starting tomorrow, we will still need to address the changes that are coming our way over the next decades...

Unfortunately we past the point of just needing to address the causes. This patient is in the hospital and needs all the medical intervention we can provide.

Putting the patient in an ice bath reduces fever, fast. But it does not save the patient. Instead, it actively interferes with controlling the infection, thus with saving the patient.

We have an antibiotic that would work. We just need to use it. Each second's delay administering the antibiotic increases odds of death.

That analogy is super wrong. An antibiotic in the analogy would be renewables AND massive CO2 capture. Which is not even on the table right now. We only have a HALF solution to the problem.

First stop adding to the problem. Then, reduce the problem.

Diverting resources to capture would steal from displacing CO2 emitters. There is no way you can capture more than is being emitted until the amount emitted is driven way, way down. Only after you cannot displace much output anymore are other methods of any use.

You get overwhelmingly more benefit from each dollar by displacing output.

Your fallacy is assuming resources are diverted.

When you buy candy, are you diverting resources away from cutting CO2 emissions? When you buy a movie ticket? Every month when you pay your Netflix subscription?

We can do both. In fact we MUST do both.