I really dislike how most of these articles are written. They aren't actually about CCS but misinformation and they are combating it by... misinformation...

Let's be clear, it is true that CCS is not a viable solution today and that we should not rely on it saving our asses. I really haven't heard anyone that supports CCS argue that we can follow a business as usual model with emissions. I've heard oil propaganda that is very clearly oil propaganda but never an actual person, scientist, or really even the low bar that is youtube armchair experts (admittedly I'm in a bubble to filter out the worst).

The reason I dislike these articles is for 2 major reasons.

1) Our concern is climate and while a major driver is CO2 (as well as methane and other things which we often don't address) it is not the problem. If our net is 0 then this is equivalent to not emitting any[0]. The problem is the emissions in our atmosphere which is dependent upon our emissions but that's different then them being the same thing. The subtle distinction is extremely important.

2) Even if we phased out all fossil fuels and EVEN IF WE REACH NET 0[1], this does not solve the subsequent problem of removing the remaining excess carbon in the atmosphere. Net 0 is foolish, we need to be net negative. At net 0 the planet will still warm for some decades due to the lag in the heating effect. The world is already at 420 ppm atmospheric CO2, about 150% the levels of most of human history and 120% of what's considered a safe level. There is also a lot more carbon locked in our oceans and some will release as we draw it out of the atmosphere. There's carbon locked in icecaps and tundras that will release as warming continues or even saturates.

The fact of the matter is that we need to be net zero. They're right to point to reducing or eliminating fossil fuels to the extent possible. But this is extremely short sighted and it just creates an easy tool for the fossil fuel industry to weaponize against the green movements because if you fight dishonesty with dishonesty you don't get the benefit of context or nuance, you make it simple to discredit you. This phenomena is not unique to climate change and it is ridiculous that we continue to do this after decades of observing the results of these tactics.

We can't put all our eggs in one basket, hoping that we can solve all the remaining emission problems soon enough. Just like we can't rely on CCS to save us. (Right now CCS is terrible and who knows how long till it'll be sufficient, but that's not an argument against continuing research and development, especially since it's a small slice of the pie). It is the same argument and they are both valid. Additionally, we can't continue to jump from fire to fire, as climate change is a problem explicitly caused by short term thinking. We will still down the line have to remove the additional carbon that has accumulated and we should absolutely do this faster than what would happen via natural sources. CCS does include planting trees, but you also can't plant enough trees to offset a single year of US emissions, let alone the remaining 70%.

I'm sorry, but CCS has to be part of the solution. People using a solution to create false narratives is also bad, but that doesn't mean we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We've seen the results of this with another energy technology where a certain country has far lower emissions than its neighbors and if that was popularized as it was initially we wouldn't have half the mess we have today. Stop repeating the same mistakes.

[0] if we make naive assumptions of homogeneity, but extend the net argument to heterogeneous emissions and we get back in line

[1] Which we currently don't know how to fully solve because electricity isn't the only source! We can make fantastic headway and should not let this fact deter us in the slightest but rather be cognizant that there are more sources of emissions and more than fossil fuels