Carbon Capture: a controversial solution to the climate crisis?

In its infancy, with as few as 20 projects of its kind in commercial use worldwide, Carbon Capture has already secured billions of dollars in investment from governments and eager businesses, which will only fuel the pessimism of those concerned about false rhetoric propagated by the fossil fuel industry.

In an eye-catching recent deal, a consortium of giants including Microsoft and Amazon invested in a Canadian firm called CarbonCure which aims to slash emissions created from concrete production – a process which accounts for more CO2 dump on a yearly basis than every nation bar China and the US.

Using machines that look a little like giant air conditioners, CO2 emissions created by regular concrete production are sucked into the unit directly from the air where they are later injected into concrete to create reinforced limestone. Amazon plans to use this material to construct all its new building developments going forward, including its vast new headquarters in Virginia. In a recent statement, Amazon boasted that the process could reduce global concrete emissions by 500 million metric tons by the end of the decade.

Microsoft is onboard as a keen investor but has large-scale Carbon Capture endeavours of its own too.

Dubbed ‘Moonshot,’ the tech giant’s climate plan will reportedly involve collecting CO2 from the air, and also from biomass energy from underground, before injecting the stored emissions into rock formations.

While this all sounds great in theory, Klaus Lackner, a professor of Sustainable Engineering at Arizona State University claims that retrofitting power plants with Carbon Capture units is largely pointless in the grand scheme of things. With renewable alternatives waiting in the wings to replace fossil fuels, he instead believes that the technology would be put to better use siphoning, and storing stubborn pollution from the vehicle, shipping, and aviation industries.

On that front, I’d have to say I wholeheartedly agree. What use is there promoting the continued production of fossil fuels if we don’t need to? If this kind of technology does go into widespread use across the globe, we’re merely offsetting our own emissions instead of addressing the problem at  the source. The technology is definitely solid and utilising it to rid the atmosphere of existing emissions is a far more exciting prospect.

Unfortunately, that possibility isn’t one being proposed by those with the power to enact widespread change. Assertions that this is a last-ditch attempt to save a dying fossil fuel industry may not be too wide of the mark after all.

Only time will tell. In the meantime, nobody is giving up on renewables.