The uses for a technology are largely driven by the people who initially pay money for it. Here, clearly, carbon capture has been paid for by oil and gas compan

The uses for a technology are largely driven by the people who initially pay money for it. Here, clearly, carbon capture has been paid for by oil and gas companies and no one else. It feels like they have given up on the technology simply because some companies have used it for purposes they don't approve of. As I see it, no one is willing to pay the cost to purchase and dispose of the CO2, so more profitable uses needed to be found. This is something we could solve simply with funding it seems. If it's really too expensive to collect and dispose of CO2, that would be a different (much more compelling) argument, but one which the article fails to make.