The Dark Side of Carbon Capture

Carbon capture, sequestration, and removal are all vital technologies we need to utilize to achieve net-zero carbon emissions. The difference between these technologies is that removal removes carbon that has already been emitted into the atmosphere, sequestration attempts to take carbon away at its source, such as from flue stacks, and carbon capture essentially encapsulates all of these different technologies. Regardless of the method of carbon capture used, this carbon can have a few different destinations. It can be sold for other uses, stored underground, or used for chemical processes. Carbon capture may be a crucial tool to get us to net-zero, however, despite its superficial beneficence, it will generate profit for fossil fuel companies, scar the environment, harm local communities, and exacerbate the climate crisis.

Carbon capture benefits fossil fuel and oil companies and allows them to create more profit and continue to scar the landscape. When fossil fuel companies drill a well and extract the resources from it, at the very end there is still a little bit of oil left, which they want to extract as well. These companies purchase carbon dioxide from carbon capture companies and use this CO2 to pressurize the wells, concentrating the dispersed oil, allowing them to extract it. This means of extraction allows the companies to profit more off the same oil well, encouraging them to create more wells, do the same thing, allowing them to mine more fossil fuels, and make even more money. Fossil fuel companies are one of the biggest funders of carbon capture as it allows them to increase profit, meaning they will continue to fund the carbon capture industry, when in reality, all it is doing is exacerbating the climate change issue.

Carbon capture exacerbates the climate crisis and encourages companies to continue to use fossil fuels, instead of making the necessary switch to renewables. Carbon capture is what allows companies to say they are going to “net-zero”; in fact, this technology makes up the “net” part of “net-zero”. It allows companies to emit CO2 as long as they utilize carbon capture to take it out of the atmosphere. Companies, namely fossil fuel and oil companies, can and will continue to emit carbon dioxide and can still call themselves “net-zero” companies. Further, these companies will hesitate to shift from fossil fuels to renewable sources, since it is so expensive and such a drastic change when they can continue to use non-renewable sources as long as they use carbon capture. This method of using carbon capture impedes upon a sustainable future as it promotes the use of fossil fuels as long as carbon capture is being used to counter it.

Carbon capture technology results in more emissions than it will probably capture in its lifetime. When carbon is sequestered, the means of storing it are often unreliable. This means there is a lack of viable space and unpredictable storage methods simply because it is unlikely that the carbon dioxide will stay in the ground once it is put there due to cracks and leaks in the rocks.Sequestering carbon makes it even worse for the environment and atmosphere. In fact, Mark Jacobson, a professor at Stanford University, found that over the 20 years, carbon capture only removed 10-11% of the emissions produced. Furthermore, its practices are extremely similar to those of fracking as carbon capture requires holes being drilled into the ground for storage and large carbon pipelines to get to these holes, just like oil companies. Carbon capture is not actually capturing carbon and emits more than it removes, proving it is net-negative for the environment in the status quo.

Lastly, carbon capture is harmful for local communities and causes health concerns, due to its oil-like practices. In 1986, a lake in Cameroon released a massive bubble of CO2, turning the lake deep-red, forming volcanic activity and suffocating and killing around 1,800 people. These people described the aftermath as the equivalent to seeing a neutron bomb dropping. During the event, survivors could not breathe, think, or even move. When introduced in small amounts, carbon dioxide is known to have hallucinogenic effects; however, at this large scale, the effects were devastating. This event proved that, similar to an oil pipeline, if a carbon pipeline leaks, it can have devastating effects on the local population and has resulted in people being hospitalized in the past. Carbon capture has caused devastating health problems for communities in the past and will continue to do so in the future, if the technology remains as it is right now.

Carbon capture seems like a vital technology to achieve our net-zero future. However, to get there, we need to ensure a few things: it is not profiting oil companies, it is not discouraging companies to shift to renewables, and that it is securely stored and does not pose a threat to the public. Increased R&D and funding needs to go into carbon capture to find ways around the environmentally-harmful carbon pipelines, to reduce the health hazards to local communities, and to increase the viability and reliability of underground storage methods. More policies and legislations need to be put in place to ensure fossil fuel companies are not profiting off of carbon capture and to ensure they are not funding carbon capture. This can be done in a number of ways, for instance, financially incentivizing carbon capture companies to not sell to fossil fuel companies, through government subsidies. Policies also need to be put in place to prevent companies and nations from using carbon capture as a cop-out and stopping the transition to renewable energy. Carbon capture is a means to an end, not an end itself. Governments and companies need to begin directing their attention towards carbon capture, from a research and political viewpoint, in order to increase the functionality, decrease the health risks, and increase its positive uses. Carbon capture can be a necessary tool to achieve a sustainable and renewable-powered future. Or it can be used for us to stick our heads in the sand and continue with everything we are doing and hit the 2 ℃ mark. It’s our choice, let’s see what the world decides.