So you harvest CO2 to into fuel. That fuel is burned and the CO2 is released back into the air. So net difference is zero.
But to harvest the CO2 you needed to generate a high amount of heat. That's extra CO2. So net CO2 is more.
It depends on the cost of harvesting that CO2.
It's a process to turn:
* otherwise-waste carbon dioxide into (taking electricity)
* syngas, which can be turned into
* synthetic diesel, methanol, alcohol or plastics
Plastics could be a carbon sink I guess.
I would much rather to pay more for net zero carbon fuel, then not do anything.
Whether something is net zero depends on what you are adding it to; it's not inherent in that thing.
It's like, if you have a pile of blue things, then the pile is also blue. But other characteristics do not work that way. If you have a pile of things that each weigh 1 lb, then the pile does not weigh 1 lb.
It acts just like a battery.
It's like moving from a variable rate credit card to a 0% loan. You still have this pile of debt you need to deal with, but you more or less stop the problem from getting any worse.
Look at it this way, do you believe CO2 is basically fungible in the context of global climate change?
That depends on where they get their energy from.