CCS Cannot Meet Planetary Decarbonisation Needs and Has Never Hit Capture Targets

Carbon capture and storage is an expensive, unproven technology that even at its full announced potential would address only about 2.4% of global CO2 mitigation requirements by 2030, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. An IEEFA review of 16 operating projects finds that no existing CCS project has consistently captured more than 80% of carbon, despite industry claims that 95% capture rates are achievable.

Not a single CCS project has ever reached its stated CO2 capture rate target, according to IEEFA's ongoing tracking of the technology. Across 16 projects reviewed, capture rates have never consistently exceeded 80%, far below the 95% rates frequently cited by proponents. Projects from Algeria to Texas demonstrate a persistent history of cost overruns and delays. An IEEFA study of two Norwegian CCS projects, widely regarded as success cases, identified unexpected challenges and required interventions that raise serious cautions for far larger proposals currently under development.

IEEFA's analysis positions CCS as a technology used primarily by the fossil fuel industry to justify continued oil and gas production rather than as a genuine climate solution. The IPCC and the IEA agree that renewable energy, energy efficiency improvements and the elimination of fugitive methane emissions can together address more than 80% of global decarbonisation requirements by 2030. CCS, even if its technical deficiencies were resolved, can contribute only marginally. The IEA's latest Net Zero Roadmap has revised downward CCS's role, projecting it will contribute less than 5% of required emissions reductions by 2030.

For the hundreds of currently proposed CO2 underground disposal projects, IEEFA notes there is scant publicly available information on the technical adequacy of storage sites. Even if all globally planned CCS projects are delivered on schedule, they would capture less than 1% of current annual energy-related emissions. The institute argues that the equal billing CCS receives alongside proven solutions in climate policy discussions is unwarranted and counterproductive, diverting public and private capital from renewable energy and energy efficiency — technologies with demonstrated, scalable track records.

Key figure — 2.4% — CCS's maximum potential contribution to global CO2 mitigation by 2030, according to the IPCC