Carbon capture is having a moment, and it’s not hard to see why: As Texas Monthly reports, “According to estimates, the worldwide carbon-capture market is expected to grow from about $2 billion this year to about $7 billion in 2028.”
Last year’s bipartisan infrastructure law devotes billions to advancing the technology, and atmospheric CO2 levels have now reachedThey have reached their highest levels in human history. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling, which limits the federal government’s power to reduce climate pollution, is making techno-fixes all the more appealing, and California’s own climate plan appears poised to lean on carbon capture to reduce emissions in accord with the state’s net zero goal.
There’s just one problem: There is no real evidence that carbon capture can or will do what its optimistic name suggests.
The popular image of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) – promoted by the fossil fuel industry, politicians and techno-futurists alike — is a power plant equipped with devices that can grab the spewing pollution before it reaches the atmosphere. Then it can be safely stored or reused.
Despite decades of investment and billions of dollars, however, no such facilitiesExist on any meaningful scale.
The most notable CCS projects in the nation have been multibillion-dollar failures. Even the world’s largest carbon direct air capture facility that’s currently under construction is expected to remove only 0.0001 percentThe global CO2 emissions per year.
So why is carbon capture still considered a bipartisan solution to climate change? Carbon capture is a great option for Democrats who are frustrated at their inability to pass meaningful climate legislation. Something. And for many voters, it has an intuitive rhetorical appeal: Who wouldn’t want to “capture” carbon pollution?
For the fossil fuel industry, the appeal of CCS is more complicated — and dangerous. Carbon capture is meant to make us feel good about the near future. It is a simple solution. We can preserve fossil fuel status quo, but we can also eliminate emissions using a new quick fix. In fact, the status quo is likely to get worse for climate change. As Michael T. Klare points out, “world oil production is hovering at around 100 million barrels daily and is projected to reach 109 million barrels by 2030, 117 million by 2040, and a jaw-dropping 126 million by 2050.”
Even if carbon capture was possible, it would not solve the many other serious problems that are associated with fossil fuels. Carbon capture would not reduce other deadly forms of air pollution caused by fossil fuel plants, water contamination by fracking, and the toxic waste from drilling.
What is the underlying cause of this baffling CCS trend? Massive federal subsidies. A 45Q tax credit program from the IRS has offered companies a per-ton credit based on how much carbon dioxide is captured. Over a period of ten years, 10 companies have received about a billion dollars. A damning 2020 report from the Treasury Department found that almost $900 million in capture credits did not even meet the Environmental Protection Agency’s monitoring and verification guidelines; it remains unclear how much actual pollution is being captured.
Instead of reining it in, the 45Q program got expanded in 2020. And last year’s bipartisan infrastructure law dedicates roughly $12 billionTo encourage carbon capture in various forms.
Those funding streams, combined with a desire on the part of companies to promote “climate-friendly” fossil fuels, are driving more CCS projects into the spotlight. These plans are mostly theoretical. There are, for example, press releasesAlthough carbon capture technology is often referred to as being attached to new infrastructure, such as fracked-gas export facilities, there is little evidence that this will ever happen.
Some projects, such as the massive carbon-pipeline project being built in several Midwestern states are facing serious opposition. Farmers and other landowners are resistant to handing over precious land to pipeline companies, while experts are raising questions about the scientific and technical feasibility of the projects — not to mention the public safety concerns.
Despite the failures of carbon capture, there have been some successes. AreThere are only a few successful capture facilities currently in operation. But it’s important to know what “success” looks like: These projects overwhelmingly use the captured carbon in a process known as “enhanced oil recovery,” a fanciful term for pumping more oilExisting wells. It is not a win for the environment to extract and burn more oil.
Carbon capture has been a costly, costly failure. But by another measure it’s been a resounding, frightening success. Fosil fuel companies managed to convince the federal government to spend billions of dollars on false schemes that do not solve the climate crisis. This is terrible news for the planet. It will only get worse until lawmakers stop making these false promises and start taking action to stop pollution at its source.
