So, we don't need massive adoption of electric cars to solve the problem. We can also figure out how to manufacture conventional fuels in environmentally friendly ways.
There are a lot of Exxon commercials talking about algae-based fuels, but in reality we are still just making our ethanol from corn (which most agree is not a good idea). Given the momentum behind EVs and their other benefits (lower maintenance costs, less noise, no emissions, etc.), I would rather my tax dollars go towards accelerating the push for electrification than push for a transition to biofuels.
There is definitely a place for carbon-neutral fuels in applications where energy density is paramount, particularly aviation and long distance shipping. There is also a niche case for fueling heavy-duty ground vehicles like large trucks. I don't think that carbon-neutral fuels are going to be cheaper than electrification for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks, though.
The issue is it's also more expensive than using electric cars.
Thus biological fuels are carbon neutral. No new carbon is added.
(For the same reason, if you heat your home with wood, the only new carbon comes from the energy used to cut the wood down and transport it to your home. The carbon released from your chimney is neutral because the tree captured that carbon from the atmosphere while it was growing.)
Heating with wood unlocks all that essentially inert carbon into wide spread particulate, so it's no more carbon neutral than burning coal you collect by hand. You're also depleting the carbon absorption side by harvesting the tree