It is less expensive (for society) to prevent the release of previously sequestered CO2 than it is to deal with the consequences of introducing the CO2 into the carbon cycle.
Though since the costs of releasing sequestered CO2 are socialized, but the benefits are privatized, the US (at the federal level) continues to choose inaction.
So does, unfortunately, the rest of the world. With the recent anti-nuclear craze, the EU is sadly not stellar in this regard either. And all of this forgets about Africa, which continues to improve the living condition of its people and thus grow in energy demand. If there isn't green infrastructure ready to be used there, they'll go for the easiest thing, which means fossil fuels.
And so do many individuals. I mean, I can ask anyone about the climate, and they'll all tell me that "climate change bad; clean air good". But when I say something about emission tax, the most polite response I get is "what's wrong with you, mate?"...
Do you have an analysis to back up your point? You might be right, but it isn't obvious.
1. It's clear that preventing the release of significant amount of CO2 will be very costly. Even with massive lobbying costs, just keeping the emissions at current levels will be a great accomplishment.
2. Because the relationship between CO2 and warming is logarithmic, the more we release, the less good lowering emissions will do.
3. $1 now is worth more than $1 (+ inflation) 50 years from now
Though since the costs of releasing sequestered CO2 are socialized, but the benefits are privatized, the US (at the federal level) continues to choose inaction.