You could've answered 80% of these questions for yourself by just reading the linked press release.
Edit: other user called what you're doing here concern trolling and I agree. If you disagree on principle with government assistance for childcare you're free to make the case, but this gish-galloping faux-naive JAQing off adds no value.
> surely you see that this line of reasoning leaves a little to be desired?
When responding to innumerate “napkin maths” and a sourceless speculation, on one hand, and a multibillion-dollar practice done by experts, on the other hand, no, not really.
I didn't make the initial post, and 'unsourced in this particular instance' doesn't mean there's no legitimate basis for OP's claims. To be clear, I'm not anti-CCS, but I have an environmental degree and based on my admittedly nonexpert opinion I agree with OP's assertion that it's not really a solution - it's a temporary measure at best.
But yeah I see your point - no multibillion dollar industry filled with experts has ever done anything ill-advised, futile, or environmentally damaging simply for profit. cough corn ethanol Can you imagine how the world would look if that were the case?
There are a number of scientific papers that are also skeptical about the long-term viability of underground CCS strategies but they're all paywalled so I didn't link them here, but you should seek them out yourself.
Edit: other user called what you're doing here concern trolling and I agree. If you disagree on principle with government assistance for childcare you're free to make the case, but this gish-galloping faux-naive JAQing off adds no value.