Personal opinion, if this was a game of poker, they're overplaying their hand.
I think the paper makes perfect sense, if they had placed a "dummy" counter-reaction in the picture, and had something innocuous used there. This would not distract from the value of the paper, which is the catalyst design. Other scientists using their materials, or citing them, will be citing them for the catalyst.
They could have put a couple lines in their "for future work" section, a thing about PET recycling being a possible counter reaction, assuming ways and means are available to prepare the substance at low cost. Leaving it as a challenge to other scientists to think up a digestive method. Playing out their own digestive method, in the middle of a paper with a limited page count, that's cheeky. I realize you get extra points for making "an entire black box" as a solution, but that's not how we beat CO2. CO2 is a collaborative effort. It will require the best bits and pieces from a number of publications (because of course there would be resistance to any large scale deployment, and every amateur scientist alive would have rude things to say about the details). when it is deployed in multiple countries, some of the starting materials may not be available, and so substitute donor reactions may be needed.
We've already seen some tiny "test installs" for CO2 handling, and already there is a lot of laughter. There is much more to this than just lab work, there is public perception to deal with.
Paul