Key points this article will cover:
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been hailed as a game-changer in the fight against climate change. By capturing carbon dioxide emissions from industrial processes and storing them underground, CCS offers the promise of a future where heavy industries can continue operating without contributing to global warming.
But behind the glossy marketing campaigns and lofty goals lies a more troubling reality. For many companies, CCS is not a genuine commitment to sustainability but a convenient way to delay harder decisions. Instead of transforming business models and reducing emissions at the source, they are leaning on CCS as a technological Band-Aid that papers over deeper problems.
On paper, CCS sounds like an ideal solution. It enables industries such as cement, steel, and oil and gas—which are responsible for significant emissions—to continue operating while mitigating their environmental impact.
The technology has seen significant investment, with global CCS capacity exceeding 44 million tons in 2024, with a 57% year-on-year increase in CO₂ capture capacity under construction. High-profile projects, such as Shell’s Quest facility in Canada and Norway’s Northern Lights initiative, have been touted as examples of CCS’s potential.
Yet, these projects barely scratch the surface of what’s needed to address global emissions. According to the International Energy Agency, the world would need to capture 7.6 gigatons of CO₂ annually by 2050 to align with net-zero goals—a far cry from current capacity.
The limitations of CCS are not just about scale—they’re also about efficacy, cost, and accountability.
CCS is expensive. The technology requires significant upfront investment, and capturing and storing CO₂ can cost more than $200 per ton, depending on the source. For many industries, these costs make widespread adoption financially unviable without substantial government subsidies.
Even when implemented, CCS often fails to capture 100% of emissions. Most facilities achieve capture rates between 60% and 90%, leaving a significant portion of emissions unaddressed.
Although CCS is effective for specific industries, its applicability is limited. Sectors like aviation and agriculture, which are major contributors to emissions, cannot benefit from CCS in the same way heavy industry can.
Storing CO₂ underground is not foolproof. There’s always a risk of leaks, which could release the captured carbon back into the atmosphere and undermine the technology’s effectiveness.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of CCS is how it’s being used to deflect attention from more impactful climate actions.
By touting their investments in CCS, companies can position themselves as climate leaders without making meaningful changes to their operations. For example, oil and gas companies frequently promote CCS as a way to continue fossil fuel production while claiming sustainability credentials. However, studies have shown that many of these companies allocate more resources to fossil fuel expansion than to emissions reduction technologies.
Governments, too, use CCS as a way to delay systemic changes. Instead of implementing policies to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels or transition to renewable energy, they focus on subsidizing CCS projects, which often have limited long-term impact.
Although CCS has a role to play in the climate transition, it must be seen as a complement to—rather than a substitute for—systemic change.
The focus should be on reducing emissions at the source. This means investing in renewable energy, improving energy efficiency, and rethinking industrial processes to minimize carbon output. Policies that encourage electrification, such as subsidies for clean energy and penalties for high-emission industries, will drive far more impactful change than relying on CCS alone.
Innovation in other areas, like direct air capture (DAC), may also offer more scalable solutions. Unlike CCS, which targets emissions from specific sources, DAC can capture carbon directly from the atmosphere, addressing emissions that have already been released.
To ensure CCS is not used as a cover for inaction, transparency is critical. Companies must disclose not only their investments in CCS but also how those investments fit into a broader sustainability strategy. Regulatory frameworks should require companies to demonstrate measurable reductions in their overall carbon footprint, not just offset emissions through CCS.
Carbon capture technology is not a silver bullet. It has a role to play in decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors, but it cannot replace the systemic changes needed to address the climate crisis. Treating CCS as a cure-all only delays the urgent work of transitioning to a sustainable economy.
The future of climate action depends on bold, transformative efforts—not on shortcuts that keep old systems in place. By focusing on reducing emissions at their source and holding companies accountable for genuine progress, we can move closer to a world that doesn’t just capture carbon but leaves it in the ground where it belongs.