I was about to post that the article seems to consist of snippets gathered from elsewhere. The bit about using captured carbon to grow plants and carbonate fizz

I was about to post that the article seems to consist of snippets gathered from elsewhere. The bit about using captured carbon to grow plants and carbonate fizzy drinks was the original pitch ClimeWorks AG had before they pivoted to seeking direct donations from the public. These are also uses of captured carbon that do not result in its long term sequestration and so are orthogonal to discussions about mitigating climate change. It'd be nice to have seen that noted in the article, and to see some sources cited. One critical point that article does touch on is that CCS at the point of emission is regarded by some as an unproductive distraction and that money would be better spent elsewhere (I.e. switching away from the emitting activity). That debate is a microcosm of general analysis paralysis that crops up in discussions around reducing carbon emissions - we seem to have a propensity for getting stuck searching for 'perfect' solutions at the detriment of deploying things that at least nudge the dial in the right direction (merely 'better'). We can (I'd almost argue must) do anything we can agree as merely 'better' today and then do 'perfect' if/when that becomes possible. Then again, green washing is a real and strongly incentivised phenomenon so agreeing even on what's truly 'better' is often not straightforward. At the very least I can say with relative confidence that quite often CCS = usually better and CCUS = usually green washing. But even then the devil is in the details - CCS might not be better once the total energy cost is understood or if those energy inputs are themselves not decarbonized or fully accounted for. Carbon use might be beneficial if the usage does result in sequestration for a significant period.