We had the technology to get to 80% carbon neutrality for centuries. Preindustrial society was 80% of the way to carbon neutrality compared to today. The only problem is that people aren't willing to accept a preindustrial standard of living. In other words, they are unwilling to live materially poorer lives than they do today. So from that perspective, it's purely a question of "improving the economics".

Perhaps what you meant was that we have the technology to do it without completely abandoning industrial civilization--though maybe people will have to sacrifice some things, like eating meat, driving private cars, or living in climate-controlled private spaces. And maybe that's an easier sell. But it's also a false dichotomy. Developing the technology to reach higher levels of carbon neutrality more quickly and more economically can and must happen at the same time that we do what we can today. Building more renewable power generation can happen at the very same time that we prototype carbon capture systems for natural gas power plants, battery-electric vehicles, or Sabatier-process closed-loop carbon-neutral natural gas production (which, incidentally, is also something we'll need on Mars). We can build Generation III nuclear plants now while researching Generation IV nuclear plants to build later. We can work now on making all of our technology more energy-efficient while developing fusion power to deliver unlimited, carbon-neutral energy for generations to come.

It isn't either-or though. Yes, we should do whatever we can do right now, but we should also be looking for ways we can do better in 50 years time.