The potential for storing carbon dioxide underground is not as great as many once thought. A recent study published in Nature shows that the actual capacity for global carbon storage is about ten times lower than earlier estimates. This new research found that many geological formations are unsuitable because they could leak gas, cause earthquakes, or harm groundwater.
Lead author Matthew Gidden from the University of Maryland highlights the urgency of cutting emissions quickly instead. According to his findings, carbon capture and storage (CCS) could only lower global temperatures by 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.26 degrees Fahrenheit) — a stark contrast to previous estimates of up to 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 degrees Fahrenheit). He notes that while CCS has been marketed as a viable solution to climate change, it’s now clear that it should not be relied upon alone.
The study raises important questions about the effectiveness of CCS technologies, especially since they have not been widely adopted despite heavy investments. As per recent statistics, only a tiny fraction of the billions of tons of carbon emitted each year is captured using current methods.
The Paris Agreement of 2015 aimed to limit global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Many strategies to achieve this relied on the idea that CCS could contribute significantly to carbon removal. However, co-author Alexandre Koberle emphasizes that previous models overlooked many areas that are not suitable for storage, reinforcing that we need a more cautious approach.
Gidden and Koberle agree on the need to prioritize renewable energy and quickly reduce emissions instead of over-relying on CCS. Technologies associated with capturing carbon should be focused on hard-to-decarbonize sectors, like concrete manufacturing and aviation, rather than extending the life of fossil-fuel industries.
Despite skepticism from some circles, including conservatives who argue that CCS is costly, experts in the field believe it has a role in the overall emissions strategy. Jessie Stolark from the Carbon Capture Coalition insists that CCS is essential for tackling climate change, but it should complement rapid emissions reduction.
Rob Jackson from the Global Carbon Project acknowledges the study’s cautious tone, but he stresses the importance of actually cutting emissions now rather than waiting for future solutions. He questions whether society will invest in carbon removal if it isn’t willing to reduce emissions today.
The study indicates that while technologies for capturing carbon from industries can remove around 60% of emissions, achieving higher rates is challenging and expensive. Gidden warns that delaying serious action on emissions could lead future generations to face a monumental clean-up task.
In short, while carbon capture and storage might play a part in our climate strategy, it cannot substitute for immediate reductions in fossil fuel use. The focus must urgently shift to cleaner alternatives to genuinely combat global warming. For more on climate strategies, check out the Global Carbon Project.
Source link
Sustainability, Climate change, Energy industry, Environmental science, Matthew Gidden, Alexandre Koberle, Rob Jackson, Climate and environment, Jessie Stolark, Climate
