Climate Change: Carbon Capture Falls Short in Resolving the Crisis

Climate Change: Carbon Capture Falls Short in Resolving the Crisis:

Harnessing giant blowers to extract carbon dioxide from the air appears ingenious. Instead of solely focusing on eliminating emissions, this method suggests the possibility of continuing emission production and subsequently retrieving them from the atmosphere. This solution mirrors the Cat in the Hat’s little red vehicle with robotic arms, tidying up the chaos created by Thing One and Thing Two. The Cat in the Hat reassures the children, saying, “Have no fear of this mess. I always pick up all my playthings.”

Direct air capture, despite being labeled as a nascent technology, lacks the reliability of Dr. Seuss’s fictional three-wheeled miracle machine. At COP28, the United Nations climate summit in Dubai, the concept faces severe criticism. Collin Rees, U.S. program manager at Oil Change International, expressed concern, stating, “It’s incredibly dangerous for the fossil fuel industry and its enablers in government to promote the idea that they can keep burning fossil fuels while pulling carbon out of the air or out of the smokestacks with technologies that consistently fail to deliver.”

Direct air capture of carbon isn’t entirely without merit. In fact, it’s poised to become an essential component of the climate change solution. Certain sectors of the economy, like jet aviation and cement production, pose challenges where achieving absolute zero greenhouse gas emissions is either impossible or prohibitively expensive—although advancements in technology might alter this landscape. In these instances, reaching net zero becomes more economically feasible by allowing a minimal carbon footprint and subsequently employing direct air capture to cleanse the emissions.

Investing in long-term research on this technology certainly holds significance. The Biden administration’s allocation of $3.5 billion to establish four regional hubs, starting with Texas and Louisiana, is a crucial step to expedite the advancement and implementation of direct air capture. Although methodologies may vary, the core concept involves filtering air to extract carbon dioxide, subsequently either sequestering it underground or utilizing it in manufacturing processes. The strategy emphasizes maintaining the environmental integrity of this energy-intensive process by sourcing electricity from renewables like solar and wind. John Kerry, the U.S. climate envoy, emphasized the necessity of carbon capture, stating, “The science says we cannot get to net zero 2050” without incorporating it to some extent.

The challenge arises when direct air capture is perceived as a partial substitute for robust endeavors aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Sultan Al Jaber, president of this year’s climate summit and head of the United Arab Emirates national oil company, Adnoc, appears to incline towards this viewpoint. Al Jaber recently stated that there was “no science” supporting the notion that restraining global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels necessitates ceasing fossil fuel production.

Adnoc, in collaboration with Occidental Petroleum, is actively engaged in direct air capture initiatives. Occidental Petroleum, also known as Oxy, commenced construction in April on a $1.3 billion facility in Texas aimed at extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Their plan involves injecting this captured carbon dioxide underground to enhance oil extraction. This strategy aligns with a larger goal to prolong the lifespan of the oil industry. Vicki Hollub, Oxy’s chief executive, highlighted this approach as crucial, stating, “This gives our industry a license to continue to operate for the 60, 70, 80 years that I think it’s going to be very much needed.”

The rhetoric surrounding this approach raises concerns among climate scientists and activists. Even the International Energy Agency, known for its moderate stance on environmental matters, recently cautioned against placing “excessive expectations and reliance” on carbon capture as a comprehensive solution. The agency’s reference to carbon capture encompasses both direct air capture—extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which is notably expensive—and capturing carbon dioxide from concentrated sources like smokestacks, which proves to be a less costly method.

The scale of carbon capture necessary to limit the planet’s temperature increase to within 1.5 degrees Celsius would be “inconceivable” given the projected trajectory of oil and natural gas consumption under current policy settings, according to the agency. By 2050, the electricity demand for capturing such levels of carbon would surpass the entire global electricity consumption in 2022. This staggering contrast underscores the immense challenge posed by relying solely on carbon capture to curb temperature rise amidst unabated fossil fuel consumption.

Joseph Romm, a senior research fellow at the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media, shared an article with me before the climate summit, branding direct air capture as a “trap” that diverts attention from the primary goal of reducing CO2 emissions. In an email, he mentioned that while direct air capture might hold promise in the distant future, when all conceivable measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have been exhausted, investing in it presently would, for decades, represent a costly misallocation of resources that could otherwise be directed toward renewable energy initiatives.