That's true but assumes the captured CO2 remains that, captured. The article revolves around the idea of turning CO2 into fuel. Fuel which is burned, releasing that same CO2 again while having wasted a lot of intermediate energy. At best, that energy was renewable and would've been curtailed otherwise (hence wasted). Then you didn't "use energy" but it was still an utterly useless exercise.

Now, if the carbon remains captured and the energy for capturing is renewable, we are in business. I'm not aware that is done on a meaningful scale yet though.