It's not another topic. Whether CO2 projects are economic ipso facto determines whether net zero is pie-in-the-sky. After all, everyone responds to incentives.
Nobody is writing off CO2 EOR as wholesale unpractical. Whether CO2 is used in place of water, steam, gels, chemicals, are a matter of economics specific to each reservoir/field/operation. Clean energy projects so far are less economic than hydrocarbons.
The industry's Scope 1 and 2 emissions alone are a massive 5 gigaton/yr. At the moment, the total global capture capacity projected at 2030 is...0.5Gt/yr. 10%...assuming zero increase in demand in hydrocarbon. Netting out the industry emissions to zero requires expenditure of money, energy, and time on a scope thats unrealistic. That's why some are 'so negative'.
The pledge for net zero is not binding. Operators will commit to the extent 'required' by the capital markets (eg wall street) or regulators. Their capex on core, profitable business, are revised and reverted every few years.. you think they're truly going to spend on a 30 year horizon to meet 2050 emissions promise? current executives won't be around, board won't be around, hell, most of these companies in operations today won't be around by then.