The world has much less places to safely store the carbon dioxide under land of what was thought, which drastically reduces its potential to help stop the global warmingaccording to a new study that challenges industry statements about practice.
The study, published on Wednesday in Nature magazine, found that the global carbon storage capacity was 10 times less than previous estimates after ruling out the geological formations where gas could be filtered, causing earthquakes or contaminating groundwater, or had other limitations. That means that carbon capture and storage would only have the potential to reduce man’s heating by 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit (° F), much less than previous estimates around 9-10.8 ° F, the researchers said.
“Carbon storage is often presented as an exit to the climatic crisis. Our findings make it clear that it is a limited tool” and reaffirms “the extreme importance of reducing emissions as quickly and as soon as possible,” he said Main author Matthew Gidden, research professor at the Global Sustainability Center at Maryland University. The study was led by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, where Gidden is also a principal researcher in the Energy, Climate and Environment Program.
The study is the last blow to a technology, promoted for years by the oil and gas industry, which has often promoted as a climatic solution. Today, carbon capture is far from being implemented at a scale, despite the billions of dollars in investments worldwide, and the amount of carbon currently captured is only a small fraction of the billions of tons of carbon dioxide issued each year.
He Paris Agreement 2015 He asked to limit the average increase in global temperature to 3.6 ° F, but ideally below 2.7 ° F, compared to the early nineteenth century.
Many scenarios to achieve this have been based on the elimination and storage of carbon, assuming that the potential was “very large” because the previous estimates did not take into account the vulnerable areas that may not be adequate, said the co -author of the study of Alexandre Koberle, researcher at the University of Lisbon.
1/7 | Devastating Scene: Corals dead in Puerto Rico by extreme heat and bleaching. Restoled colonies of the coral Venado horn (“Acropora Palmata”) totally bleached and freshly dead during the mass bleaching event of 2024. Extreme temperatures can kill the corals exposed at temperatures higher at their level of tolerance for prolonged periods. This species is protected under the Federal Law of Endangered Species. – Supplied: Edwin Hernández Delgado
“That was never systematically questioned and proven,” Koberle said, adding that the study was the first to examine which areas should be avoided, which led to what they call a “prudent potential” that minimizes the risks for people and the environment.
That does not mean that carbon capture and storage are not important to maintain global temperatures under controlbut countries must prioritize how they use limited storage and do it together with quick and deep emission reductions, researchers said.
Ideally, technology should be used for sectors that are difficult to decarbonize, such as cement production, aviation and agriculture, instead of extending the useful life of polluting power plants or prolonging the use of oil And gas, said Koberle.
Industry officials defended carbon capture and storage as something inherently low risk and say that emerging technologies, such as carbon dioxide storage in basalt formations where it is mineralized, could drastically increase total storage volumes.
Moreover, its use “is not optional if we hope to address global warming,” said Jessie Stolark, executive director of 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 their cautious perspective. And although it is optimistic that carbon capture technology itself will work, it believes that very little will be stored “because I don’t think we are willing to pay it.”
“If we are not willing to reduce emissions today, why do we expect people in the future to simply pay automatically to eliminate our pollution?”Said Jackson. “We simply continue contaminating and do not address the root of the problem.”
Carbon dioxide, a gas produced by burning fossil fuels, catches heat near the ground when the atmosphere is released, where it persists for hundreds of years and increases global temperatures.
Industries and power plants can install equipment to separate carbon dioxide from other gases before the chimney comes out, or can be captured directly from the atmosphere using giant vacuum cleaners.
The captured carbon is compressed and sent to a place where it can be deeply inject underground for long -term storage in deep or basalt formations and non -exploitable coal veins, although approximately three quarters are pumped again to the oil fields to generate pressure to help extract more oil.
In USAsuch projects have faced criticisms of some conservatives, who say that it is expensive and unnecessary, and of environmentalists, who say that they have not constantly managed to capture as much pollution as promised and is simply a way for fossil fuel producers such as oil, gas and coal to continue their use.
The most used technology allows facilities to capture and store about 60% of their carbon dioxide emissions during the production process. Anything above that rate is much more difficult and expensive, according to the International Energy Agency.
Gidden, the main author, said that It is clear that expanding carbon storage will be important to achieve zero net emissions and eventually reduce themand said that the use of basalt formations is promising. But the world cannot wait for that to happen before acting with decision to drastically reduce fossil fuel emissions.
“If we prolong our dependence on fossil fuels for too long with the expectation that we will simply compensate it by storing carbon underground, we are likely to be carrying future generations with the almost impossible task of dealing not only with our disorder, but with limited ways to clean it,” he said.