FACT SHEET: “Carbon Dioxide Removal” is Misguided and Should Be Abandoned

What’s worse than a bad idea? Two bad ideas packaged together into one proposal. That’s exactly what the Department of Energy (DOE) is doing with their Voluntary Carbon Dioxide Removal Purchasing Challenge.

Here’s a simple explanation of DOE’s proposal. Experimental technologies collectively known as Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and store it underground. Proponents claim CDR is essential to keep global temperature increase to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius, which is the upper limit for warming for a livable planet.

As DOE states elsewhere, CDR is intended to pull CO2 that’s already in the atmosphere, actually reducing atmospheric CO2 levels instead of merely preventing additional CO2 from getting into the atmosphere. The U.S. government is subsidizing CDR through funding allocated by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and tax credits for carbon storage expanded by the Inflation Reduction Act.

But CDR is very expensive. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), widely regarded as the most authoritative source on climate science, an early-stage CDR plant is estimated to cost at least $600 per ton of CO2 removed, which translates to $38 billion to remove the equivalent of 1 percent of 2022 U.S. greenhouse gas emissions of 6.3 billion tons.

DOE’s proposed Voluntary Carbon Dioxide Removal Purchasing Challenge will provide another revenue stream for CDR operations to defray these costs. It’s a market for companies who operate facilities emitting greenhouse gasses to buy “carbon removal credits” from CDR operators to “offset” some of their emissions. The premise is that if an industrial facility emits 500 tons of CO2 annually, but buys 500 tons worth of carbon removal credits from a CDR facility, that would effectively zero out the industrial facility’s emissions.

There are two evident problems with this proposed arrangement. One, if CDR is used to offset emissions from another facility, it’s not reducing atmospheric CO2 as originally intended, it’s merely balancing an addition of CO2 with a corresponding withdrawal. Two, it’s a tacit admission by DOE that the generous subsidies for CDR aren’t enough.

These aren’t the only problems with this proposal either. First, the justification offered by DOE for why CDR is essential to meet climate goals isn’t backed up by scientific evidence. DOE claims that “Large-scale carbon dioxide removal is critical to reach net-zero targets by 2050.” However, modeling by the IPCC shows that there are a number of feasible pathways to get to zero emissions and stay within the upper limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius without using CDR.

Far from concluding that CDR is indispensable, the IPCC cautions that it’s expensive and highly energy intensive. Operating CDR at sufficient scale to make a difference will use the entirety of worldwide electricity generation today. The IPCC also cites studies showing that CDR could be used as an excuse for not reducing emissions, and that over-reliance on untested technologies such as CDR is dangerous.

CDR introduces new environmental hazards as well. It typically requires CO2 to be piped to underground injection locations. CO2 pipelines are especially likely to fracture, releasing clouds of asphyxiating gas. A 2020 CO2 pipeline rupture in Mississippi sent 49 people to the hospital with acute respiratory symptoms.

One bad idea that DOE is promoting through this proposal is CDR. The other is the concept of “offsetting” emissions to reduce them. Allowing a greenhouse gas emitting facility to “offset” its emissions with a removal of CO2 somewhere else, instead of cutting its own emissions, does not do anything to address other toxic pollutants from burning fossil fuels, such as particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, responsible for heart disease, asthma, and other illnesses. There are egregious, long-standing racial and economic inequities in who gets disproportionately exposed to, and harmed by, these pollutants. By choosing to promote offsets, DOE is effectively saying they don’t care about environmental justice.

And inconveniently for DOE, carbon offsets don’t work as advertised.

DOE solicited public comments on their proposal, and we joined the Center for Biological Diversity, Food and Water Watch, Healthy Gulf, and 58 other organizations to provide comments, in which we elaborated on all the concerns we describe above, and more.

You can read our comments here.