Perspectives of Environmental NGOs on CCUS

Supportive Perspectives

Recognition of Role in Hard-to-Abate Sectors: Some NGOs, such as the Canadian Climate Institute, emphasize that CCUS is a critical technology for decarbonizing industries where direct emissions reductions are technologically or economically infeasible, such as:
- Cement Production: Emissions from chemical reactions during production are unavoidable.
- Steel Manufacturing: High-temperature processes generate significant emissions.
- Fertilizer Production: Requires CCUS to manage emissions from ammonia synthesis.
Complementary to Renewables: These organizations argue that while renewable energy and electrification should remain the priority, CCUS is an essential complementary strategy for achieving Canada's net-zero emissions targets. Source: Canadian Climate Institute - Carbon Capture in Canada

Driving Industrial Sustainability: Proponents within the environmental community suggest that CCUS can lead to breakthroughs in creating carbon-neutral industrial processes, such as utilizing captured CO₂ to manufacture sustainable fuels and materials.
Alignment with Global Goals: CCUS is highlighted as a key technology in Canada’s contribution to international climate agreements, including the Paris Agreement, which requires decarbonization across all sectors.
Catalyst for Research and Development: By advancing CCUS, Canada has the opportunity to establish itself as a leader in clean energy technologies, supporting innovation while meeting domestic and global climate goals.

Source: Global CCS Institute - Role of CCUS in Net-Zero

Fossil Fuel Perpetuation:

Greenpeace Canada has been a vocal critic of CCUS, arguing that it enables the continued operation of fossil fuel industries by creating a veneer of environmental responsibility. This stance highlights concerns that:
- CCUS technologies allow companies to justify ongoing oil and gas production rather than transitioning to renewable energy.
- Industry narratives often position CCUS as a solution while delaying meaningful investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Greenwashing Concerns:

Greenpeace critiques CCUS as a "false hope" technology, asserting that its promotion serves as a public relations tool rather than a substantive climate solution. Reports by Greenpeace warn that:
- CCUS has not demonstrated sufficient scalability to significantly reduce emissions.
- Public funds allocated to CCUS are often misdirected, favoring fossil fuel companies over transformative climate action.

Source: 🔗The Great Carbon Capture Scam

Technical and Economic Barriers:

NGOs like Environmental Defence Canada question the viability of CCUS as a large-scale climate solution. Their critiques focus on:
- High Costs: Developing and operating CCUS infrastructure is prohibitively expensive, requiring significant government subsidies to attract investment.
- Limited Scalability: The technology’s slow adoption rate and infrastructure demands raise doubts about whether it can meet climate targets in time.
Long-Term Uncertainty:

Environmental Defence highlights the risks associated with CO₂ storage:
- Questions about the long-term integrity of geological storage sites.
- Potential for leaks that could undermine the technology’s efficacy.
Focus on Renewables:

Many NGOs argue that public and private funding for CCUS would be better invested in renewable energy development, energy efficiency, and electrification strategies.

Source: 🔗Environmental Defence - Carbon capture is not a climate solution