Despite over $40 billion invested globally, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) captures and stores less than 0.1% of annual global CO₂ emissions, raising serious questions about its efficacy as a climate solution. This review addresses the critical disconnect between modelled expectations and empirical outcomes of CCS, offering a comprehensive, evidence-based reassessment of its technical, economic, and strategic performance. The analysis integrates data from peer-reviewed literature, international reports (IPCC, IEA, Carbon Tracker), and investigative journalism, evaluating both failed and superficially successful projects, including Petra Nova, Gorgon, Sleipner, and In Salah. These case studies expose recurring patterns of cost overruns, suboptimal capture rates, geological uncertainties, and public liability transfer. Projects hailed as "successful" often fall short when scrutinized against durability, scale, and emissions offset claims. While these findings raise valid concerns, this review does not categorically dismiss CCS. Instead, it emphasizes the need for strategic deployment in specific, hard-to-abate sectors where alternatives are limited such as cement production or legacy infrastructure retrofits. Beyond critique, the review explores proven alternatives: renewables, bio-based removals, mineralization; that offer higher scalability and permanence with fewer systemic risks. A predictive evaluation framework is introduced to match/compare capture and mitigation/avoidance technologies to emission contexts using criteria such as CO₂ concentration, energy demand (2.5-8 GJ/tCO₂), cost ($50-600/tCO₂), scalability, and permanence. Ultimately, the findings underscore that continued reliance on CCS is a high-cost gamble that risks delaying the deployment of truly effective climate solutions; yet, if strategized properly, 2026-2030 could still mark a decisive turning point in determining its role in the energy transition.