This reminds me of that one gag; let's both put $20 in a box, and I'll sell the box to you for $30. (I can't find the relation to what's at hand tho)
Back on topic; in one we stop someone making a mess, in another we start cleaning it up.
Eventually it ought to start getting cleaned up. i.e. CO2 has to fall.
Developing technologies for that now is good. Stopping people from making messes is also good, and cheaper.
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?