A recent study reveals that the capacity to securely store carbon dioxide deep underground is much lower than previously estimated. This finding could significantly impact efforts to combat global warming.
Published in Nature, the study indicates that the true global storage capacity for carbon is ten times less than earlier predictions. Researchers excluded sites where gas could leak, trigger earthquakes, or contaminate water. Consequently, the potential to reduce human-caused warming is now estimated at just 0.7 degrees Celsius, a stark contrast to earlier projections of up to 6 degrees.
Lead author Matthew Gidden, a researcher at the University of Maryland’s Center for Global Sustainability, emphasizes that while carbon capture is often seen as a solution to the climate crisis, it should not overshadow the urgent need to cut emissions quickly. Carbon capture technology, heavily promoted by the oil and gas industry, has yet to be deployed at scale, despite significant investments.
The 2015 Paris Agreement aims to limit global temperature increases to below 2 degrees Celsius, with ambitions for a target closer to 1.5 degrees. For years, strategies for meeting this goal have relied on optimistic estimates of carbon capture and storage (CCS), which didn’t fully consider geographical limitations.
Study co-author Alexandre Koberle from the University of Lisbon points out that many previous assumptions about CCS potential were never rigorously tested. This study evaluates which areas are unsuitable for carbon storage and proposes a “prudent potential,” which emphasizes minimizing risks to people and the environment.
While carbon capture has a role to play, experts suggest it should be used primarily for challenging sectors like cement production and aviation. Gidden cautions that relying too heavily on this technology may put future generations in a tough spot, burdened with our environmental mistakes.
Industry representatives argue that advancements are on the horizon. They cite promising methods, such as mineralizing carbon in basalt formations, which may enhance storage capacity. However, this optimism contrasts with the stark reality that the current carbon capture rate is only about 60% at best, as noted by the International Energy Agency.
Rob Jackson, head of the Global Carbon Project, provides a balanced viewpoint. He acknowledges the value of carbon capture but urges immediate action on emission reductions. He questions whether society will be willing to invest in carbon reduction technologies in the future if we’re not committed to cutting emissions now.
In summary, while carbon capture and storage technologies remain important, they should complement, not replace, direct actions to reduce emissions. Experts urge a more immediate approach to address the climate crisis effectively.
For more on carbon capture technology and its impact on climate change, you can explore AP News.
Source link
Rob Jackson,Matthew Gidden,Alexandre Koberle,Jessie Stolark,environment,Climate
