"Net-zero emissions" is a great intermediate target. We'll have to reduce emissions and develop ways to get CO2 back from the atmosphere. Having both in balance ('net zero') will be a great milestone: it's the point from which we're not making matters worse anymore.

There's a lot of skepticism about the negative emissions part. But if that wouldn't work, the net-zero target automatically changes into a "zero emissions" target. That's built into it!

Let's work very hard on the negative emissions part too though. We'll need it to reduce atmospheric CO2 once we've arrived at net-zero emissions. Reforestation, agricultural practices to bring carbon back in the soil, biomethane with CCS to produce 'climate positive hydrogen', ..

.., and Direct Air Capture. There's no reason that wouldn't work, but can it be done at scale, with a reasonable amount of materials, and in an affordable way?

The EU has already agreed that we need to push on to 'net negative' emissions, right after we reach net-zero (now scheduled for 2050).

And of course this shouldn't distract us from reducing the 'positive' emissions. Intermediate, separate targets like the EU's -52.8% by 2030 help keep the focus on that. It's a massive reduction (38% in 11 years), although even faster would be even better

And, as with all policies, loopholes have to be eliminated, monitoring has to improve, rules have to be tightened, and new insights have to be included.
Cf. the biannual cycle of sharpening the Montreal Protocol.