Carbon storage has been subjected to a silver miracle solution for climate change by a massive underground study
The world has much fewer places to securely store deeply underground carbon dioxide than it was thought before, considerably reducing its potential to help global warming, according to a new study which calls into question the affirmations of the longtime industry on practice.
The study, published Wednesday in the journal Nature, revealed that the global carbon storage capacity was 10 times lower than previous estimates after excluding geological formations where gas could flee, trigger earthquakes or contaminate groundwater, or had other limits. This means that the capture and storage of carbon would only have the potential to reduce human warming by 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.26 fahrenheit) – much less than previous estimates of around 5 to 6 degrees Celsius (9-10.8 degrees Fahrenheit), researchers said.
“Carbon storage is often described as a way to get out of the climate crisis. Our results clearly indicate that this is a limited tool “and reaffirms” the extreme importance of reducing the emissions as quickly and as soon as possible, “said the main author Matthew Gidden, a research professor at the World University Center for Maryland University. The study was led by the International Institute for the analysis of applied systems, where Gidden is also a principal researcher in the Energy, Climate and Environment program.
The study is the last blow on a technology, for years promoted by the petroleum and gas industry, which has often been presented as a climate solution. Today, the capture of carbon is far from being deployed on a large scale, despite billions of dollars in investments worldwide, and the quantity of carbon currently captured is only a tiny fraction of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted each year.
Difficult hypotheses
The 2015 Paris Agreement planned to limit the average increase in world temperature to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees fahrenheit), but ideally below 1.5 ° C (2.7F), compared to the early 1800s.
Many scenarios to be carried out which have relied on the elimination and storage of carbon, assuming that the potential was “very important” because the previous estimates did not represent the vulnerable areas which could not agree, said the co-author of the Alexandre Kuberle study, researcher at the University of Lisbon.
“This has never been systematically challenged and tested,” said Koberle, adding that the study was the first to examine which areas should be avoided, which leads to what they call “prudent potential” that minimizes risks for people and the environment.
This does not mean that carbon capture and storage are not important to control global temperatures – but countries must prioritize the way they use limited storage and conjunction with rapid and deep emission reductions, the researchers said.
Technology should ideally be used for difficult to decarbonize sectors, such as production of cement, aviation and agriculture, rather than prolonging the lifespan of polluting power plants or to extend the use of oil and gas, Koberle said.
Industry officials defended carbon capture and storage as having an intrinsically low risk and say that emerging technologies, such as carbon dioxide storage in basalt training where they become mineralized, could considerably increase total storage volumes.
In addition, its use is “not optional if we hope to approach global warming,” said Jessie Stolark, executive director of the carbon capture coalition, adding that it must be combined with other ways to reduce emissions and balance with the need for reliable and affordable energy.
Rob Jackson, head of the Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists who monitor greenhouse gas emissions, praised the study for his prospect of predigence. And although it is optimistic that carbon capture technology itself will work, he thinks that very few will be stored “because I don’t think we are ready to pay for this”.
“If we are not willing to reduce emissions today, why do we expect people in the future will pay automatically to remove our pollution?” Said Jackson. “We simply continue to pollute and not approach the root of the problem.”
How does it work
Carbon dioxide, a gas produced by the combustion of fossil fuels, imprisoned heat near the ground when released in the atmosphere, where it persists for hundreds of years and increases global temperatures.
Industries and power plants can install the equipment to separate carbon dioxide from other gases before leaving the fireplace, where it can be captured directly from the atmosphere using giant vacuum cleaners.
The captured carbon is compressed and dispatched to a place where it can be injected under a deep ground for long -term storage in formations of saline or deep basalt solution and constant coal seams – although about three -quarters are taken up in the oil fields to build pressure to help extract more oil.
In the United States, such projects have been criticized by certain conservatives, who say that it is expensive and useless, and environmentalists, who say that it has still not managed to capture as much pollution as promised and is simply a means for producers of fossil fuel such as petroleum, gas and coal to continue their use.
The most commonly used technology allows installations to capture and store around 60% of their carbon dioxide emissions during the production process. Anything above this rate is much more difficult and expensive, according to the International Energy Agency.
Gidden, the principal author, said that it is clear that carbon storage scaling will be important to make net-zero emissions and to reduce them, and said that the use of basalt training is promising. But the world cannot wait for this to happen before acting decisively to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
“If we extend our dependence on fossil fuels for too long while we will compensate by just storing underground carbon, we probably despise ourselves future generations with an almost impossible task to manage not only our mess, but limited means of cleaning it,” he said.
___
The climate and environmental coverage of the Associated Press receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the AP standards to work with philanthropies, a list of supporters and coverage areas financed at AP.ORG.
https://fortune.com/img-assets/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/AP25240568005510-e1757030104385.jpg?resize=1200,600
About The Author
