Position Statements
Carbon capture and storage is counterproductive to solving climate change because it increases greenhouse gas emissions relative to less expensive and cleaner abatement methods.
Carbon capture and storage subsidies — including research and development, loans, demonstration grants, and tax credits — prolong the fossil fuel era by increasing the consumption and production of fossil fuels, creating a financial incentive for corporations to increase carbon production.
Our positions include:
Carbon capture and storage represents a huge opportunity cost. Given the limited time and resources available for implementing climate and pollution solutions, renewable electricity and electrification should always be prioritized over capture and storage.
Carbon capture and storage is unnecessary. Carbon capture and storage are inappropriate when there is an opportunity to: (1) replace a carbon dioxide emitting source with a non-emitting source; and/or (2) use the money and/or the renewable energy being used to power that carbon capture for better use, such as replacing another source of carbon dioxide.
Subsidies should target efforts to reduce emissions, not carbon capture and storage. Climate goals are better met by using funds on proven technologies that quickly eliminate the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity and for transportation and use in buildings.
Using carbon capture to produce more oil and gas is not a climate solution. Seventy-nine percent of carbon capture projects in operation globally, and 86% in the United States, are used to extract more oil.
Carbon capture and storage should not be used to justify the development of new fossil fuel infrastructure. The majority of proposed carbon capture projects in the United States are for new fossil fuel facilities that will result in increased climate pollution emissions.
For our full position statements, click here.