The take I have heard is that carbon capture, in theory, is an important part of dealing with emissions from sectors which don't have a realistic carbon-neutral

The take I have heard is that carbon capture, in theory, is an important part of dealing with emissions from sectors which don't have a realistic carbon-neutral alternative (i.e. smelting). However, the main problem is that the "impact" of carbon capture is mostly accounting tricks and not actually, you know, capturing the carbon. The LaBarge facility mentioned in this article is a great example - where the carbon "captured" was mostly used to extract more fossil fuels from the ground. Given that sorry state of the existing facilities, we've committed a truly embarrassing amount of public funding to the tech. That said, my understanding is that we really could use a working form of carbon capture to make the math work around the edges of reduction targets. It's a bit of a double scam: where oil companies have diverted money away from developing a technology we actually need and also where we've diverted money away from areas that are much more important overall to invest in a scam.