A new study has exposed the reality behind the fossil fuel industry’s push for carbon capture, highlighting the devastating consequences of investing in this technology instead of renewable energy sources.
Researchers at Stanford University have compared the costs of deploying carbon capture technologies with the benefits of transitioning to 100% renewable energy by 2050. The results are striking: every dollar spent on carbon capture instead of renewable energy increases CO2 emissions, air pollution, energy costs, and social burdens.
The study, published in Environmental Science & Technology, found that transitioning to 100% renewable energy would not only reduce energy needs and costs but also improve air quality and slow climate change. In contrast, widespread deployment of carbon capture technologies would be much more expensive and damaging.
The study compared two extreme scenarios: a complete switch to 100% renewable energy and a scenario where countries maintain their current reliance on fossil fuels with some renewables, nuclear, and biomass.
The results show that the renewable energy scenario would reduce end-use energy needs by more than 54% and annual energy costs by nearly 60%.
“If you spend $1 on carbon capture instead of on wind, water, and solar, you are increasing CO2, air pollution, energy requirements, energy costs, pipelines, and total social costs,” said lead study author Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering in the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability and Stanford School of Engineering.
“This study demonstrates that the only way to eliminate all air-pollutant and climate-warming gases and particles from energy is to eliminate combustion,” said Jacobson.
“Carbon capture is an expensive distraction that diverts attention and resources away from the real solution: transitioning to 100% renewable energy.”
The implications of this study are far-reaching. Climate policies that promote expansion of renewables as well as carbon capture and direct air capture should be abandoned, according to the researchers. Instead, governments and industries should focus on investing in clean energy like solar, wind, geothermal, and hydropower.
“The benefits of eliminating combustion far outweigh the costs of investing in carbon capture,” said Jacobson. “It’s time to stop greenwashing and start taking action towards a sustainable future.”
In Brief:
- Transitioning to 100% renewable energy by 2050 would reduce energy needs and costs, improve air quality, and slow climate change.
- Widespread deployment of carbon capture technologies would be much more expensive and damaging.
- Every dollar spent on carbon capture instead of renewable energy increases CO2 emissions, air pollution, energy costs, and social burdens.
The study recommends abandoning climate policies that promote expansion of carbon capture and direct air capture and focusing on investing in clean energy.
