Carbon Capture Technology: Can It Really Save the Planet?

As global concern over climate change intensifies, carbon capture technology — including carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) — is often promoted as a key part of the solution. But how effective is it really? The answer is: useful but limited.

What Is Carbon Capture / CCUS

CCUS refers to a set of technologies that capture carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from industrial sources or directly from the air (in some cases), then transport and store or reuse the CO₂ — preventing it from entering the atmosphere.
In 2025, there are about 45 commercial-scale capture facilities operating worldwide, with a combined capacity to capture over 50 million tonnes (Mt) of CO₂ per year.
The technology is particularly relevant for “hard-to-abate” industries — such as cement, steel, chemicals — where reducing emissions is especially difficult without capture systems.

What Carbon Capture Can Do — and Recent Progress

CCUS deployment is on the rise. According to the latest data, between early 2024 and early 2025 the number of projects in development increased — reflecting growing interest in CCUS as part of decarbonization strategies.
If the current pipeline of CCUS projects is completed as planned, worldwide capture capacity could reach around 430 Mt CO₂ per year by 2030.
Carbon capture offers a viable path for industries where switching to clean energy or eliminating emissions entirely is not practically possible today — helping reduce ongoing emissions while technologies and infrastructure evolve.
New advances continue. For instance, researchers develop improved materials for CO₂ absorption and novel capture methods that may improve efficiency and lower costs over time.

What Carbon Capture Can’t Do — and Why It’s Limited

According to a 2025 evidence-based review, despite global investments (over US$ 40 billion), CCS currently captures and stores less than 0.1% of annual global CO₂ emissions.
A recent study published in Nature warns the planet’s capacity for safe CO₂ storage underground may be 10 times smaller than previously thought — drastically reducing how much CO₂ can realistically be stored over the long term.
Even if CCUS grows, estimates suggest it may only be able to offset a fraction of emissions — far below what is needed to meet global warming targets without major reductions in fossil fuel use.
The process is often costly and energy-intensive, especially for direct-air capture (DAC) methods: capturing CO₂ from ambient air requires large amounts of energy and remains expensive under current technology.
There is also a risk that over-reliance on carbon capture delays needed systemic changes — such as cutting emissions at the source by shifting away from fossil fuels — by offering a technological “offset.”

What Experts Say: Carbon Capture — Not a Silver Bullet

According to analysts at the International Energy Agency (IEA), current CCUS efforts — though growing — remain far short of the scale needed for a realistic shot at global net-zero emissions.

The growth forecast from some industry observers, like DNV, expects CCS capacity to increase four-fold by 2030. Yet even then, CCS would represent only a modest share of global emissions — not enough on its own to solve the climate crisis.

Meanwhile, critical reviews highlight how CCS has delivered only minimal impact so far, due to storage limitations, project delays, cost and scalability challenges.

What This Means for the Planet — and Our Strategy

Carbon capture has clear value — especially for industries where emissions are hard to eliminate. It can serve as a complementary tool in a broader climate strategy.

However, it cannot be the main or only solution. To meet global climate goals, reducing emissions at the source — accelerating renewables, energy-efficiency measures, structural changes in how we produce and consume energy — remains essential. Carbon capture may buy time and handle residual emissions, but on its own it doesn’t “save the planet.”

Policymakers, industries, and societies should use CCUS wisely: as part of a diverse, aggressive climate strategy — not as a substitute for meaningful emission reductions and sustainable transformation.