There are definitely examples of where CCS is commercially viable [1], but implementation is lagging, and the technology is very unlikely to scale to capture the amounts that we are releasing. It would generally make better sense to keep the C in the geosphere than to first pump it up, burn and capture it again.

[1] https://research.chalmers.se/en/publication/531680

Not sure why you got downvoted.

Not emitting carbon is always going to be more effective than emitting then capturing carbon.

But most of green tech is a load of green washing (https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE warning long video).

By most I mean non-nuclear, non hydro-electric.

Fact is that battery tech isn't up to task of high capacity highly reusable energy storage.

It's harder to police not emitting carbon, after all right now I'm not emitting five billion tons a second of carbon.

I also lack the ability to emit that much, but that's not a major issue. In general it's hard to pay for someone NOT doing something without it being scammed.

Then tax every m3 emitted.

Sure it will be passed to consumer but there aren't any good alternatives tbh.

Or just don't do anything and pray you aren't destroyed by climate change.

It's also insanely dangerous if it goes wrong.

Are you thinking of any particular technology? Synthetic fuels don't seem to be more dangerous than fossil fuels for example.