When people talk about the climate crisis, they tend to agree on one primary solution: Cut carbon dioxide emissions. And indeed, if we want to keep the planet habitable, we must stop pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. But decarbonizing the economy is just one of three essential ways to deal with carbon. The other two—carbon capture and carbon removal—tend to get short shrift.
The problem with focusing solely on decarbonization is that it ignores the many carbon sources that are still going strong. Making chemicals and steel still depend heavily on burning fossil fuels. Coal-fired power may be waning in the United States, but it’s thriving in countries like China and India, and global coal use reached anAlso reaching a record high in 2022 was the amount of carbon that’s already in the air.
Finally, even if we were to achieve the needed emission reductions, the world would still benefit from removing carbon to mitigate the effects we’re already experiencing. Natural carbon removal approaches include reforestation and agricultural soil management; technological approaches include direct air capture with carbon mineralization, biomass with carbon removal and ocean-based carbon removal.
As mentioned with CCS and enhanced oil recovery, not every carbon capture or removal scenario is a climate win. We need objective, transparent analyses of life cycle emissions and techno-economic impact—these assessments will help in making science-based decisions on technologies that will benefit the climate and make sense financially.
The nation’s industrial engineering and technology sectors have roles to play in bringing down costs and risks—capturing and storing carbon can be viable only if we can do it with the right safeguards in place. Research partnerships with industry are already uncovering ways toand other potential pitfalls associated with sequestering carbon. The cost of not doing so—and for allowing locked-in carbon emissions to continue unabated—is too high.