If the carbon dioxide emitted by factories could be captured before it enters the atmosphere, and then transported, used or stored underground, could we keep using fossil fuels without paying the price of warming? This is the most appealing image of carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS), and also the point at which it is most easily oversimplified.
CCUS usually captures carbon dioxide from large emission sources, then compresses and transports it for use in products or for injection into suitable geological formations for long-term storage. For industries such as cement, steel and chemicals, which are difficult to fully electrify and whose processes themselves release carbon dioxide, it may be an important tool on the path to net zero.
A Useful Technology Does Not Mean It Suits Every Situation
Data from the International Energy Agency shows that in the first quarter of 2025, global operating large-scale capture and storage capacity was slightly above 50 million tonnes per year; based on existing plans, capture capacity could rise to around 430 million tonnes by 2030. But the IEA also points out that current trends still fall short of a mid-century net-zero pathway.
CCUS requires additional energy, which raises equipment and operating costs; the carbon dioxide also needs transport pipelines, storage sites, long-term monitoring and a liability framework. Some forms of utilisation only place carbon in products temporarily, and it may eventually be released again, so they cannot be equated with permanent storage.
Most important of all is opportunity cost. If the same funds spent on energy saving, renewable energy or the direct retirement of high-carbon equipment would cut emissions more cheaply, then expensive capture systems should not be given priority simply to preserve an existing business model.
Future Technology Cannot Postpone Today’s Reductions
Climate policy needs a mix of technologies. There is no need to call CCUS a scam, but neither can it be treated as a cure-all. The sensible order is still to avoid unnecessary energy use first, improve efficiency, switch to low-carbon energy and materials, and then apply capture technology to the parts that are genuinely hard to eliminate.
When governments support CCUS, they should publicly assess the cost of the emission reductions, the energy demand, the storage risks and the allocation of public funds. When companies claim that carbon “can be captured”, they should also explain the actual capture rate, operating hours and life-cycle emissions, rather than promoting design capacity alone.
Responsibility after storage matters just as much. Who continues to monitor the underground carbon reservoir? If a leak occurs decades later, who bears it — the company, the government or society? Without clear legal and financial responsibility, so-called permanent storage is only half of the engineering job done.
No single technology can solve climate change on its own. The value of CCUS lies in whether it can fill the hardest gaps in the transition, rather than putting a high-tech exit sign over the parts no one is willing to change.
We need innovation, and we also need judgement: which tool is genuinely useful where, and which promise is only buying time for delay.
References
-
International Energy Agency (IEA), CCUS Projects Database and 2025 progress update.
-
IEA, Financing CCUS at Scale, March 2026.
