At first, you said that if any CC could achieve net-zero emissions, then it would be significantly more cost-effective than rebuilding infrastructure. Baseless assertion without any specific numbers to cite.
Now, you're saying that if any CC could be net-zero and more cost-effective, then it should be welcomed. Well, yes, obviously.
I posed an entirely hypothetical proposition that, if this technology could achieve net zero emissions in a more efficient manner (obviously implied), that there would still be many people who hate on it because it would enable fossil fuels to live on, despite the fact that, in that scenario, we would have solved climate change and allows fossil fuels to continue to prosper.
The fact that the technology would be more cost effective was obviously implied. Is it logical that I would imply that a less cost effective technology would be cheaper? No, so why interpret it that way? Does the syntax of what somebody writes always 100% accurately convey their thoughts? No, but its pretty easy for humans to interpret the meaning.
Anyway, I edited the comment for clarity. All the replies debating carbon capture technology have pretty obviously nothing to do with my original comment, and I question how somebody could interpret it in that way. The entire preposition and thrust of the comment was about the hypothetical, nothing to do with specific merits of a technology (very clearly, and obviously)
You're suggesting that hypothetically if these technologies were viable, then hypothetically people would still oppose them, because you want to suggest they're acting in bad faith and secretly have an ulterior anti-fossil-fuel agenda separate from emissions.
Surely you can see how people are going to counter one or both of those elements though, right? (The technology so far appears to be mostly a distraction from more prudent efforts and 99.999% of people would in fact love and support the technology if it worked).