Concerns Around Carbon Capture

While there are many societal benefits associated with carbon removal (along with a pressing argument for doing so quickly), there are possible drawbacks and risks. For natural carbon removal systems, concerns include the potentially large administrative costs, the designation of large areas for carbon removal, and the slow speed at which carbon sinks can absorb the CO2. For technological carbon removal systems, the main concerns are costs, scalability, and the associated moral implications.

The costs of enhancing natural carbon removal systems – such as implementing regulations and designating large areas of land for this purpose – are potentially high. Also, investing in naturally occurring carbon removal systems may not be the quickest way to reduce atmospheric CO2. If other GHG mitigation strategies can reduce overall emissions faster (and more cheaply) than natural carbon removal systems, then directing investments to these other strategies will be more efficient.

Technological carbon removal systems are not without their drawbacks either. The technology behind these systems is proven, yet removing carbon remains costly. Until regulations are put in place, carbon is priced adequately, or carbon utilization becomes profitable, carbon removal technologies will continue to remain economically unfeasible. (A recent update to the federal tax code that creates incentives for carbon capture is discussed in more detail below.)

Another concern with technological carbon removal strategies is their scalability. In order to avoid the two-degree Celsius mark, these technologies will need to be scaled up globally, and incredibly fast. Given their current cost and unprofitability, it is debatable as to whether these technologies can be scaled up quickly enough.

Lastly, a concern that invariably comes up during discussions of carbon removal is its potential for creating moral hazard. Some argue that the presence of carbon removal will allow others to continue emitting GHG pollutants, under the assumption that their current emissions can be removed from the atmosphere at a later date. But this line of thinking is flawed, because both emission reductions and carbon removal are necessary to avoid the two-degree Celsius mark; relying solely on carbon removal is untested, expensive, and unrealistic.