We need to do both.
Every single comment on an article that talks about one has commenters like you arguing "no but check this out, doing the other is so much easier/better/whatever".
We. Need. Both.
Existing carbon capture should not be subsidized because it's pointless. Sponsoring research into carbon capture would be good, but existing methods don't achieve anything wrt the climate crises.
That line of reasoning would lead you to de-fund any form of carbon capture scheme because there is about a 3-4 orders of magnitude efficiency difference between the two. Much cheaper to prevent a million tonnes from being added than to capture a few tonnes. It just doesn't add up to meaningful results. And arguably keeping the polluters that push for this in business actually adds to the problem to a large extent than their own ability to offset their carbon.