Is Carbon Capture and Storage Really a Solution to the Climate Crisis?

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies have long been presented to the public as a “technological salvation” at a time when the climate crisis is deepening. Oil, natural gas, and coal companies argue that the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere can be captured and safely stored underground, allowing the continued use of fossil fuels. This narrative creates a sense of comfort—particularly among economists—that enables the postponement of emissions-reduction policies. However, recent scientific studies show that carbon storage is neither as effective nor as viable, technically or economically, as it is often portrayed.

A recent analysis published by CarbonBrief reveals that long-accepted estimates of global geological carbon storage capacity have been wildly optimistic. Claims that 10,000–40,000 billion tonnes of CO₂ could be stored underground collapse when realistic safety and feasibility criteria are applied. According to the study, the amount of carbon dioxide that can be stored safely, reliably, and sustainably worldwide is only about 1,460 billion tonnes. This represents just a small fraction of earlier estimates. Even more striking is the fact that using this entire capacity would reduce global warming by only 0.4–0.7°C, clearly demonstrating that carbon storage cannot halt the climate crisis.

Put more simply: humanity currently emits around 50 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year. Even if emissions stopped growing entirely, a storage capacity of 1,460 billion tonnes would allow us to continue at today’s levels for at most 30 years. And then what? Two lines of thinking emerge. The first is blunt and cynical: “After me, the flood.” The second, often voiced by some economists, suggests that delaying the problem by 30 years might buy enough time to find another solution. This, too, is flawed—because carbon capture and storage is far from cheap.

In real-world conditions, capturing CO₂ from a coal-fired power plant, transporting it, and storing it underground is extremely costly. Capture costs range between $50 and $120 per tonne, with transport and storage adding another $10–40 per tonne. In total, the realistic cost of storing one tonne of CO₂ reaches $80–120. Since coal plants emit roughly one tonne of CO₂ per megawatt-hour of electricity, CCS increases electricity costs by $80–120 per MWh, or 8–12 cents per kWh. This pushes coal-generated electricity to two to four times its current cost, making it uncompetitive with renewable energy. Moreover, CCS systems consume 20–30% of the power plant’s own output, further driving up costs.

When these scientific and economic constraints are taken together, it becomes clearer why CCS continues to be promoted so strongly in climate policy debates. In practice, the technology often functions less as a genuine climate solution and more as a tool to extend the life of the fossil fuel industry. The claim that “we don’t need to reduce emissions because we can capture and store them later” allows fossil fuel projects to proceed without delay. New oil and gas investments are legitimized through promises of future carbon storage, reassuring societies that everything is under control. Yet neither storage capacity nor cost nor scalability supports this confidence.

From a logical standpoint, carbon capture and storage cannot be the core solution to the climate crisis. Storage capacity is limited, costs are extremely high, and the expected impact is insufficient. CCS may play a limited supporting role in reducing unavoidable process emissions, such as those from cement or steel production. But it cannot justify the continued widespread use of fossil fuels. The real solution to the climate crisis lies not in burying carbon underground, but in reducing emissions at the source, accelerating the transition to renewable energy, and phasing out fossil fuels altogether. Presenting CCS as a central climate strategy contradicts both scientific evidence and economic logic.

One final note: investment in these technologies should not be abandoned altogether. Not because they allow us to keep burning fossil fuels, but because we may need them in the future to actively cool the atmosphere once fossil fuel use has ended. Planning a future in which we continue to burn coal, oil, and gas while relying on CCS to clean up the mess would be one of the most dangerous mistakes we could make.