Carbon Capture: Climate Savior or Diversion?

As the world races to meet increasingly urgent climate targets, carbon capture has emerged as a central pillar in many government and corporate climate strategies. Promoted as a high-tech solution capable of pulling carbon dioxide directly from smokestacks—or even the atmosphere itself—carbon capture and storage (CCS) offers the tantalizing promise of reducing emissions without fundamentally changing how we produce and use energy.

But behind the sleek engineering and bold promises lies a complex and controversial reality. Is carbon capture truly a climate savior, or is it a costly distraction from the systemic changes needed to address the climate crisis?

The Promise of Carbon Capture

At its core, carbon capture aims to trap carbon dioxide at the point of emission—typically from fossil fuel power plants or industrial processes—and store it underground in geological formations. More recent innovations also include direct air capture, which removes CO₂ directly from the atmosphere.

Proponents argue that CCS is essential for achieving net-zero emissions, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors like cement and steel. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching global climate targets without some form of carbon capture would be significantly more difficult and expensive.

In theory, CCS enables a “cleaner” use of fossil fuels, allowing society to continue leveraging existing infrastructure while still reducing emissions. It’s seen by many as a necessary bridge—buying time while renewable energy, electrification, and storage scale up.

The Reality Check

Despite its potential, CCS has struggled to live up to its promise. Decades of investment have yielded relatively few operational projects, and many have failed to meet performance targets or were shut down prematurely due to cost overruns and technical hurdles.

One of the most significant criticisms of carbon capture is economic. It’s expensive—often far more so than switching to renewable energy sources. Critics argue that public funds spent on CCS would deliver greater climate benefits if directed toward solar, wind, grid modernization, and energy efficiency.

Then there’s the issue of scale. Current global CCS capacity is less than 50 million metric tons of CO₂ per year. For context, global emissions exceed 36 billion metric tons annually. At present, carbon capture is nowhere near the scale required to significantly alter the climate trajectory.

A Lifeline for Fossil Fuels?

Perhaps the most contentious aspect of CCS is its role in prolonging fossil fuel use. Oil and gas companies are among its strongest supporters, and some see CCS as a way to legitimize continued drilling and burning. Critics argue that framing carbon capture as a climate solution allows polluters to delay or avoid more transformative change.

This concern is not hypothetical. Some CCS projects are linked directly to enhanced oil recovery (EOR), where captured CO₂ is injected into depleted oil fields to extract more oil. In such cases, the net climate benefit is questionable at best.

The Verdict: Useful Tool or Dangerous Distraction?

The truth likely lies somewhere in between. Carbon capture is not a silver bullet—but it may be a necessary tool within a broader decarbonization strategy. Used wisely, it could help reduce emissions in industries where alternatives are scarce. Used recklessly, it could prop up a fossil fuel system already incompatible with a livable climate.

The key is prioritization and transparency. Carbon capture must not be used to delay the phase-out of fossil fuels. It should be deployed where it can offer genuine emissions reductions, not as a fig leaf for business-as-usual.

As with all climate solutions, the question isn’t just what we can do—it’s what we should do, given limited time and resources. Whether carbon capture ends up as a climate savior or a costly diversion will depend on how, where, and why it is used.