Sequestering carbon while others are emitting it is not net carbon negative. It's just a highly elaborate and inefficient way of moving clean energy around. That's why it's in Iceland - wouldn't be much point in running the plant off fossil fuels would it?

If you have clean energy, using it directly to not burn fossil fuels is strictly more efficient than trying to undo the damage done by burning fossil fuels.

Clean energy isn't fungible. Energy created in Iceland can't easily be used in India.

If you can create energy in Iceland, which is already nearly 100% renewable for electricity generation, then using it for carbon capture is carbon-negative.

If you're claiming it isn't carbon negative because someone somewhere in the world is burning carbon, then the word is meaningless, because you may as well claim that every activity on Earth is generating the exact same amount of carbon -- the average of all the activities.

Correct, my point is I don't believe the quantity of carbon capture which can be deployed will get anywhere close to the amount of carbon being released without a different fundamental economic model.