Not really, no.
What you seem to be suggesting is that, if we had a cheap way of capturing and sequestering CO2, we could go on using fossil fuels to power our economies *and* solve the global warming issue. This might be the case, but there's another aspect to it.
If you look at the costs of fossil fuels over the past 30 years, you find they are 'volatile'. They fluctuate up and down greatly. Oil is a prime example - you'd pay more than 140 dollars for a barrel in June 2008 (using 2017 dollars) and about 58 dollars today. If you look at the cost of solar or wind over the past 30 years the graph looks very different ... it's been falling and falling. In many cases, it's actually cheaper to generate power using solar and wind than fossil fuels. But don't take my word for it, take the World Economic Forum which, in January this year, reported that solar and wind were now the same price or cheaper in 30 countries than new fossil fuel capacity.
Wind and solar are not replacements for fossil fuels. They are fuel-saving technology. When you're producing lots of power using wind or solar, you can cut back on energy generated by fossil fuels. This saves those fossil fuels (and reduces your CO2 emissions). When the wind and solar aren't generating, you use your fossil fuel stations to compensate. And if wind and solar are currently the same price or cheaper, and the costs are on a downward trend, why wouldn't you want to use solar and wind to reduce costs and save fossil fuels?
Even if you ignore the global warming issue, or simply don't believe it, there are very good economic reasons why wind and solar should be included in the energy mix!