1. The difference between emissions and absorption has not, at least as far as paleoclimate records go, been stable. Imbalances have occurred.
2. In the past, a warming (very likely tied to rising solar insolation) triggered the release of greenhouse gases e.g., from melting permafrost. Emissions exceeded absorption.
3. Those greenhouse gases amplified the warming.
4. Once the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases peaked (usually after solar insolation had been decreasing), absorption exceeded increases.
5. Cooling commenced.
Today, human activities have boosted emissions of greenhouse gases (natural + human). Although the human contribution is small relative to nature's contribution, it tipped the balance where emissions now regularly exceed absorption. The result is rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.
Prior to this development, there had been a general cooling trend in the Arctic, related to slowly declining solar insolation. Solar insolation continues to decline. Nevertheless, the literature suggests that the cooling in the Arctic abruptly stopped sometime after 1900 and then reversed. Today, the Arctic might be as warm as it has been in nearly 5,000 years (some uncertainty exists). This warming, even as the trigger might be the marginal contribution from human activities, has led to growing releases of greenhouse gases from the permafrost. That process is a response to Arctic warming regardless of the causation of such warming.
In terms of policy, difficult trade-offs exist. If nations immediately and dramatically scale back use of fossil fuels, the energy supply will be less reliable and energy will be substantially more costly. The economic costs would be high and some nations would lock themselves in a suboptimal state of development (materially lower living standards than would otherwise be the case). No country is giving consideration to such an approach. If nations take a "business as usual" approach, atmospheric greenhouse concentrations might double from pre-industrial levels. Costs associated with that outcome would likely be significant. They are difficult to quantify. A middle course would involve robust R&D and increased efficiency/conservation. Atmospheric concentrations would still rise for the time being, but could level off earlier. Ultimately, humanity will need to have alternatives given the finite supply of fossil fuels, and when one considers geopolitical risks associated with the location of energy resources (excepting those in Canada, the U.S., and some more stable areas), such a middle course might be the least costly and far less disruptive than the first policy path and less costly than the second.
Ultimately, nations will have to make decisions that are in their best interest. Their choices will impact one another. Given the differences in national interests, different nations are likely to adopt different policy courses.