Global leaders have increasingly turned to carbon capture and storage as a potential solution to continued fossil fuel emissions, but an investigation by ProPublica in partnership with Drilled finds the technology faces significant obstacles to reaching the scale necessary to meaningfully reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. The investigation examined more than four decades of research funding, deployment data, and expert assessments of what would be required to make carbon capture work at global scale.
According to the International Energy Agency, staving off dangerous levels of warming requires burying approximately 1.6 billion tons of CO2 per year by 2025. However, current global permanent storage capacity amounts to less than what a single large power plant emits annually, representing a massive gap between ambition and reality.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive climate advocates have long argued that carbon capture represents a distraction from necessary emissions reductions. Organizations including the Sierra Club and 350.org have characterized CCS as a "false solution" that prolongs fossil fuel dependence while diverting resources from renewable energy deployment. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island has repeatedly questioned whether carbon capture allows oil companies to avoid accountability for ongoing pollution.
Environmental advocates point to the $85 per metric ton that U.S. taxpayers currently pay oil and gas companies to store CO2 underground, arguing this represents a subsidy that perpetuates an unsustainable energy system rather than accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels. The progressive think tank Data for Progress has argued that direct air capture investments should be paired with strict emissions reduction requirements to ensure technology development serves climate goals rather than extending the fossil fuel era.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative supporters of carbon capture argue it represents a market-friendly path to addressing climate concerns without requiring drastic changes to American energy consumption. The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity contends that CCS allows continued use of abundant domestic coal and natural gas resources while achieving emissions reductions, preserving jobs in energy-producing states.
Republican experts including those at the Manhattan Institute have argued that dismissing carbon capture prematurely ignores the potential for technological innovation to solve current limitations. Representative Jim McKinley of West Virginia has championed federal support for carbon capture research, stating that American ingenuity should be given the opportunity to develop solutions rather than abandoning an entire category of technology.
Industry groups note that the few large-scale projects currently operating have demonstrated technical feasibility and point to improving economics as deployment scales up. The Carbon Capture Coalition, which includes both energy companies and some environmental organizations, argues that carbon capture is a necessary bridge technology that can reduce emissions while cleaner alternatives are developed.
What the Numbers Show
The scale gap between current deployment and climate goals is substantial. According to IEA data cited in the ProPublica investigation, achieving mid-century climate targets would require capturing 6 billion tons of CO2 underground annually by 2050. To accomplish this, analysts estimate the world would need approximately 768,000 square miles of land for carbon-absorbing bioenergy crops—an area roughly equivalent to Mexico.
Infrastructure requirements are equally daunting. The investigation found that the United States alone would require more than 68,000 miles of new CO2 pipelines—more than double the distance to fly around the Earth and exceeding the entire U.S. interstate highway system. Globally, pipeline needs could reach into hundreds of thousands of miles.
Transport logistics present additional challenges. The analysis indicates that crossing oceans would require at least 85 specially built tankers capable of handling high-pressure CO2; as of April, only three such ships existed worldwide. Storage site development is equally constrained: while 12 large-scale geological reservoirs have opened since 1996, more than 2,000 similarly sized sites would be needed to meet climate goals—one new geological storage facility every four days for the next 25 years.
The financial implications are substantial. At current taxpayer subsidy rates of $85 per metric ton, achieving necessary capture levels could cost approximately half a trillion dollars annually by 2050—more than China's military budget and ten times the U.N.'s humanitarian and development aid expenditures combined.
The Bottom Line
Carbon capture technology remains operational at a fraction of the scale scientists say would be necessary to meet international climate commitments. Proponents argue that technological advancement could close this gap, while critics question whether the resources required could be better directed toward emissions prevention. Policymakers face decisions about how much federal support to provide for carbon capture research and deployment as they balance energy security concerns against climate targets.
Congress is expected to continue debates over tax credits and funding for carbon capture projects in upcoming legislative sessions. The outcomes of currently operating pilot programs will likely influence future policy direction, particularly regarding whether large-scale deployment receives bipartisan support.