When Alexa Dennett drove her electric car to Heirloom Carbon Technologies in California last August, the future seemed bright. President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act had sparked a boom in carbon capture — a process designed to remove carbon dioxide from the air. Heirloom was among the first to launch a commercial plant in the US, aiming to do just that.
As Dennett explained, direct air capture (DAC) technology extracts CO₂ from the air and either stores it underground or repurposes it for uses like making concrete. Big companies like Microsoft and JPMorgan Chase are already looking to offset their carbon footprints through this method.
Heirloom recently announced a $475 million investment in a new facility in Louisiana and secured $50 million in federal funding for a third plant. This suggests that after years of hype, carbon capture is gaining real traction.
Yet, not everyone is on board. Many environmentalists are critical of carbon capture, fearing it might distract from more meaningful climate action. They argue that instead of adding a Band-Aid solution, we should focus on reducing emissions directly.
Recent reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emphasize that removing carbon will be essential to avoid serious temperature rises. Current levels of CO₂ are alarmingly high, reaching 430 parts per million, up from below 300 before the Industrial Revolution. Experts estimate that by 2050, we’ll need to remove 7 to 9 billion metric tons of CO₂ per year to avoid catastrophic climate impacts.
Interestingly, about 2 billion tons are already removed globally through natural methods, such as forest restoration. But expanding these methods is tricky due to land availability and the stress of rising temperatures on natural carbon sinks. This emphasizes the urgency of technologies like DAC.
At Heirloom’s facility, I saw advanced machinery working with simple materials. Calcium hydroxide, for instance, plays a crucial role in the process of carbon extraction. The company’s methods are designed to speed up the natural processes that traditionally take years into just a few days.
Despite this technological promise, there’s significant public skepticism, especially given the industry’s checkered past with carbon offsets. Concerns about environmental justice loom large, with critics cautioning against creating “sacrifice zones” where communities might bear the brunt of new industrial operations.
Some argue that the ethics of DAC need to be taken seriously. Experts emphasize the importance of transparency and public engagement. For instance, Kalja Hendrickson of Carbon180 highlights the need for community benefit agreements before new plants are built. These agreements ensure that local voices are heard and that the new industry supports nearby communities rather than exploiting them.
Interestingly, while fossil fuel companies have been criticized for their involvement in DAC, some experts believe their expertise could fuel technological advances. David Keith from Harvard notes that engagement from big oil might indicate a shift towards taking climate concerns seriously, even as the environmental movement keeps a watchful eye on potential greenwashing.
Ultimately, making carbon capture a credible solution will require navigating complex ethical landscapes. Trust among communities, transparency, and effective monitoring will be critical to transform skepticism into acceptance. As we confront a changing climate, the path forward for carbon capture remains uncertain but essential. As the industry develops, ongoing dialogue will be key to ensuring equitable solutions that benefit both people and the planet.
