Do not buy the fossil-fuel industry’s hype about carbon-capture technology, even the schemes that work cannot be scaled up to the necessary levels, explains John Clarke

A recent headline in the Guardian glowingly suggests that a ‘new powder that captures carbon could be “quantum leap” for industry.’ For those who hope that some technological breakthrough is within reach that will make the climate crisis go away, this is almost like the discovery of the Holy Grail. Yet it is only necessary to read over the article in order to appreciate that major celebrations would be somewhat premature.

The fuss is over an ‘innocuous yellow powder, created in a lab’ with carbon absorption capacities that are significant enough that just ‘half a pound of the stuff may remove as much carbon dioxide as a tree can, according to early tests. Once the carbon is absorbed by the powder, it can be released into safe storage or be used in industrial processes, like carbonizing drinks.’

There is no doubt that the powder does in fact represent a technological advance. It ‘is known as a covalent organic framework, with strong chemical bonds that pull gases out of the air. The material is both durable and porous, and can be used hundreds of times, making it superior to other materials used for carbon capture.’

Omar Yaghi, a chemist at the University of California who led a team that tested the substance, imagines ‘a future in which people build large plants using the material in every city of 1 million people or more around the world. He has plans to scale the use of this type of carbon capture with his Irvine, California-based company, Atoco, and believes the powder can be manufactured in multi-ton quantities in less than a year.’

Carbon-capture bamboozle

Harsh reality sets in, however, once this enhanced method of carbon capture is measured up against the problem of global carbon emissions: ‘removing carbon from the air remains difficult’ and it is proving difficult to do it on a large enough scale to even engage in effective pilot projects. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is now at ‘about 400 parts per million, or 0.04%. That means that any technology to capture the gas from the air requires moving huge volumes of air – and that requires large electricity consumption for running fans.’

It is abundantly clear that the scale on which meaningful carbon capture would have to operate would be mind-bogglingly vast and the energy requirements of such an undertaking would be enormous.

Farzan Kazemifar, an associate professor in the department of mechanical engineering at San Jose State University, accepts that ‘direct air capture’ should be explored, but tellingly notes that ‘I believe the high energy intensity of the process is the main challenge with all [direct air capture] technologies.’ This ‘main challenge’ remains unresolved and the new yellow powder is probably more of a shuffle than a quantum leap.

Anyone who is at all familiar with the approaches being taken by fossil-fuel companies and governments to the unfolding climate disaster, will be aware that they place very considerable importance on carbon capture and other ‘tech fixes’. In 2023, in the lead up to the UN’s Cop28 climate summit in Dubai, Scientific American published an article noting that in ‘the inevitable crescendo of hype and greenwashing that’s coming our way, we’ll doubtless hear a lot about industrial carbon capture technologies that attempt to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.’

The article sets out several objections to the notion that carbon capture can be considered a substitute for action to reduce emissions. It points out that even ‘after decades of investment, research and development, today’s largest carbon capture projects only remove a few second’s worth of our yearly greenhouse gas emissions.’ Moreover, under existing processes, it costs ‘thousands of dollars for every ton of CO₂ removed.’ It is clear that carbon capture ‘isn’t a serious climate solution’.

However, ‘the biggest problem with industrial carbon capture schemes is that they are largely a ploy by Big Oil to delay action to phase out fossil fuels.’ With this deception, oil and gas companies are able to ‘claim that they are taking serious climate action, all the while continuing to build out additional fossil fuel infrastructure and rake in trillions in profits.’

In July, Vox undertook to expose ‘the fossil fuel industry’s carbon capture bamboozle’ and, in doing so, counter the ‘relentlessly positive marketing’ of this approach. The article points out that the ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said carbon capture might be necessary to reduce the emissions of certain “hard to abate” sectors like steel, concrete, and some chemical manufacturing, but noted that in the best-case scenario, with carbon capture technology working flawlessly and deployed at large scale, it could only account for a little over 2 percent of global carbon emissions reductions by 2030.’

It seems that, despite the rosy public claims of the fossil-fuel companies, they are fully aware of the limitations of carbon capture. Internal federal documents ‘as well as information that industry whistleblowers shared with Drilled and Vox, reveal an industry that is decidedly more realistic about the emissions-reduction potential of carbon capture and storage technology.’ Exxon ‘envisions that “global scale is limited” for CCS and hydrogen tech by 2050’ and its projections with regard to the effectiveness of the technology are ‘in line with what critics of CCS have been saying for years.’

Enhanced oil recovery

Even if the scale on which carbon capture can be conducted falls far short of what would be needed, it is still worth considering what happens to the quantities that are removed and stored. Exxon makes much of its La Barge Shute Creek gas facility in Wyoming, which is held up as a ‘successful’ carbon-capture venture. ‘On paper, LaBarge is responsible for around 40 percent of the total carbon emissions ever captured in the world. But the details tell a different story.’

In 2022, it emerged that ‘only around 3 percent of the carbon captured there (roughly 6 million tonnes) has been permanently sequestered underground. Of the rest of the 240 million tonnes of carbon emitted over the facility’s first 35 years in operation, half has been sold to various oilfield operators for enhanced oil recovery, or EOR — a process by which oil companies inject carbon underground to get more oil out — and approximately 120 million tonnes has been vented into the atmosphere.’

The Biden administration has provided lavish incentives for the development and application of carbon-capture technology. Under a tax credit known as 45Q, there ‘is no cap … and stored emissions are entirely self-reported,’ so enhanced oil-recovery operations are being publicly subsidised as a supposed contribution to alleviating the climate crisis.

It is important to understand that the drive towards carbon capture is no panicked improvisation and that major fossil-fuel companies are pursuing a very clear-minded course in the face of climate disaster. In his recent book, Crude Capitalism: Oil, Corporate Power, and the Making of the World Market, Adam Hanieh argues that ‘the trajectories established by the oil industry serve to prioritise dubious technologies and policies, create false narratives, and foreclose the necessary alternatives that are now urgently demanded’ (p.284).

Underlying this determined strategy, Hanieh notes, is the unassailable reality that ‘there is no chance that the world’s largest energy firms (including those NOCs beyond Western markets) will willingly walk away from the enormous wealth to be made from continued oil and gas production’ (p.276).

Though carbon capture is clearly a failed method from the standpoint of significantly alleviating the climate crisis, it is nonetheless a very viable means of preserving the profits of fossil-fuel capitalism. Just as the major oil companies have known for decades that their activities would produce a global catastrophe, so are they perfectly aware that carbon capture is a charade but it’s one they are determined to preserve because it is in their interests to do so.

No lobbying effort or process of self-reform will induce the oil and gas companies to change course. Without breaking their power and challenging the capitalist system of which they are an integral part, the process of global heating will continue unabated with unimaginable consequences.