Carbon Capture: A Silver Bullet Solution Lacking Any Gunpowder
By Noa Greene-Houvras, Global High School Fellow (High School of American Studies, ’24 — New York, New York)
What does a silver bullet solution to the climate crisis look like, and is it possible that there is no such thing? In recent years carbon capture has gained attention as a potential solution to the problem of excess carbon in the atmosphere. What if we could use technology to take that carbon directly out of the atmosphere and store it somewhere safe? That is the question that helped create carbon capture, utilization, and storage technology (CCUS), which many stand behind as a perfect solution to the climate crisis. It has become increasingly clear that climate change will continue to have disastrous effects if we don’t respond in time. However, we cannot let this impending fear cloud our scientific judgment. Carbon capture is not, and most likely will never be, the single solution to the climate crisis. It has a multitude of serious flaws that cannot be easily dismissed. We must be accurate and critical in how we frame carbon capture and other climate solutions to the general public so as to not spread misinformation or distrust.
To understand the flaws in CCUS, it is vital that we understand how the technology works. Carbon capture is divided into two categories: post-combustion capture and direct air capture. Post-combustion capture separates carbon from the “flue gas” produced by fossil fuel industries. Direct air capture filters carbon out of the air with the same technology but isn’t actively connected to a fossil fuel plant. The key difference is that post-combustion capture works directly with the fossil fuel industry and their on-sight emissions, whereas direct air capture works independently. Once the carbon is “captured” it is pressurized and transported through a pipeline or ship. The carbon is then either used immediately (i.e. for the energy industry) or stored underground in a deep and porous rock underneath a much denser rock. Ideally, the stored carbon is kept from leaking or escaping.
Seeing as this technology has been around since the 1970s and seems revolutionary, why isn’t it everywhere? Why are we still arguing over how to solve this crisis and prevent environmental destruction? The answer is that this technology, while seemingly an easy solution, is far from perfect. Its impact has been exaggerated, it is highly energy and resource-intensive, it would take too long to implement broadly and it leaves unanswered questions on leakage and safety. Recent research from Professor Mark Z. Jacobson at Stanford University challenged the assumption that CCUS was beneficial for the environment, finding that “it reduces only a small fraction of carbon emissions, and it usually increases air pollution.” Dr Jacobson’s research reveals that “the equipment captured the equivalent of only 10–11 percent of the emissions they produced.” CCUS is not simply an imperfect climate solution, it is a technology that may not even be considered a solution. Even if CCUS miraculously captured and safely stored carbon, according to Greenpeace and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), CCUS wouldn’t be “commercially viable until at least the second half of this century.” We cannot realistically praise a climate solution that does not work in time. We do not have until 2050 to begin implementing change and we cannot waste resources on solutions that will start to work after it is too late.
Furthermore, CCUS is largely energy-intensive and resource inefficient. According to Greenpeace, “CCS wastes energy and resources. Power plants with carbon capture will use 10–40% more energy than those without. A 20% increase in the energy requirement due to carbon capture would require the construction of an additional power plant for every four built to offset the energy loss.” We have an abundance of natural and less energy-intensive solutions, so putting all of our resources into CCUS is an impractical use of energy. Finally, there is the unanswered question of leakage. If carbon is to be stored in the ground, it is unclear what the long-term effects could be, and if leakage could be a possibility.
Beyond its inefficiency, safety concerns, and uninspiring results, the very definition of carbon capture makes it a problematic climate solution. Post-combustion carbon capture works to extend the life of the fossil fuel industry by making the industry’s effects seem less permanent and dire. Anything that prolongs the life of the fossil fuel industry is, by definition, not a climate solution. It is not enough to continue exploiting natural resources; the solutions we implement must stop the exploitation.
Contrary to popular belief, climate solutions are not few and far between. From education to expanding solar farms to plant-based diets and walkable cities, we have the tools, technology, research, and manpower to reverse the climate crisis. We are not in a place where we need to push for ineffective or inefficient solutions such as carbon capture. We have the privilege to advance a multitude of radical, effective, and efficient climate solutions. These solutions must be about more than getting under 2.5 degrees Celsius or allowing the world to continue to run on fossil fuels. Climate solutions must be used as a tool to create a more just and equitable world. Carbon capture is a band-aid solution, and not only is it ineffective at what it promises to do, but it also works to uphold a broken system rather than reform it.
