It seems to me that stopping emissions will be a lot easier and cheaper than capturing them, but if it turns out that capture gets the job done, then that's great too.
Who's to say that, as soon as emissions are neutralized, some won't again try to exploit the fact that it's "less dangerous to pollute more" as a competitive advantage? At least until there's another crisis down the road.
You'd obviously need to ensure that capture capacity kept up with emissions, but at least it would be really easy to come up with the correct price for a carbon tax.
So in comes this notion of capture. Capture to me means taking existing processes which produce carbon dioxide and somehow sequestered. So you've got a plant that burns natural gas to produce electrical power. If you capture the carbon dioxide and somehow incorporate it into something else that people need, they have an incentive to keep it capturing. The obvious example would be bricks. Use the bricks to build a structure, people preserve and use the structure. The carbon dioxide is captured. Obviously no one has figured out how to create room temperature bricks of carbon dioxide.
My issue with this project is they basically are shoving some carbon dioxide containing material in the ground and saying it is somehow captured. It might stay down there for a million years or just a few months. It's like the fracking industry claiming it doesn't impact the environment.