The phraseology in discourse can drastically alter meanings, much like the difference between “Let’s eat, Grandma” and “Let’s eat Grandma.” Similar linguistic manipulation is evident in the rhetoric surrounding COP28. Instead of advocating for the necessary elimination of fossil fuels—a consensus held by reputable climate experts—COP28 President Al Jaber and his associates from the oil industry are suggesting a “phase-out of fossil fuel emissions.” While this may seem equivalent at first, a closer examination reveals a morally dubious stance akin to cannibalism. Their intent is to sustain fossil fuel extraction while maintaining the power and wealth of oil-rich nations and corporations, using Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as a facade to mitigate their harmful emissions. But does CCS truly offer a viable solution, or is it merely a smokescreen?

It's crucial to clarify that CCS is not inherently flawed or corrupt; in fact, it could be integral to achieving net-zero emissions. The International Energy Agency (IEA) asserts that by 2030, CCS must capture around 1.5 gigatons of CO2 annually, and 6 gigatons by 2050, to meet net-zero targets. However, its practical application raises concerns. Most credible pathways to net-zero employ CCS primarily for hard-to-decarbonize sectors like cement and chemicals, rarely linking it to oil extraction—there's a compelling reason for this, which we'll explore shortly.

** For more insights or to engage with me, connect on Bluesky, X, or Substack. **

Despite scientific evidence suggesting that CCS cannot support ongoing oil usage, this narrative has gained traction, particularly at COP28. The planet's carbon budget is nearly exhausted, meaning immediate and significant emission reductions are essential to avert catastrophic climate change. This COP28 marks a pivotal moment, with increased pressure on policymakers to legislate the fossil fuel phase-out, as the urgency of our climate crisis becomes undeniable.

Oil-producing nations, including the UAE—the host of COP28—along with oil companies and executives like Al Jaber, perceive such legislation as a direct threat to their profits and influence, despite having the financial capacity to lead in renewable energy sectors. They are intent on preserving their status quo while feigning compliance with climate demands. Consequently, an overwhelming number of oil lobbyists and delegates at COP28—over 2,400 in total—are advocating for continued oil production supported by CCS.

But can CCS genuinely enable oil firms to persist in extraction as they claim?

The answer is a resounding no.

Three major challenges arise: scale, economics, and longevity.

First, let's discuss scale. The oil and gas sector currently emits an astonishing 11.2 billion tons of CO2 annually. To counteract this, we need to assess the scale of CCS required.

Climeworks, known for its effective Direct Air Capture (DAC) technology, operates a facility in Hinwil, Switzerland, capable of capturing 900 tons of CO2 yearly, occupying 90 square meters, costing $4 million to construct, and needing 1 MWh of energy to capture a ton of CO2. To offset the oil industry's 11.2 billion tons of annual emissions, we would require 12,444,444 facilities like Hinwil between now and 2050, translating to constructing 1,307 such facilities daily for the next 27 years.

This colossal CCS initiative would demand 1,120 km² of land and necessitate a massive adjacent solar farm. Given that one square kilometer of solar can yield approximately 86,666 MWh of energy yearly, we would need 129,232 km² of solar panels to power this enormous CCS operation.

In total, the area required for this extensive CCS facility and solar farm is comparable to the size of Greece! The estimated cost for building 12,444,444 CCS plants is around $49 trillion, and the solar farm would add another $124 billion, culminating in a staggering $49.124 trillion. For context, the global oil and gas industry reported record profits of $4 trillion last year.

A Global Witness analysis reveals that Al Jaber’s company, ADNOC, would require 343 years to capture all CO2 emissions projected over the next six years, illustrating that the pace of CCS development is insufficient. This realization leads Al Jaber to acknowledge the inevitability of a fossil fuel phase-out, despite his continued promotion of CCS as a means to prolong the industry.

The economic implications are equally daunting.

Consider Chevron, which emits 697 million tons of CO2 annually. Recently, J.P. Morgan contracted Climeworks for $20 million to offset 25,000 tons, indicating a CCS cost of $800 per ton. Consequently, offsetting Chevron's emissions would approximate $530 billion, or 15 times their annual profits.

The IEA projects that CCS costs might drop to around $100 per ton by 2050, but even at this lower price, offsetting Chevron's emissions would still be 1.9 times their annual profit, calculated on the basis of record earnings.

The IEA further highlights that CCS-dependent pathways to net-zero are 50% more costly than renewable-based approaches. A University of Oxford report corroborates this, indicating that CCS-heavy net-zero strategies could incur an additional $1 trillion in annual costs compared to those centered on renewables. Clearly, renewables present a more economical and practical route to net-zero.

Moreover, oil-related CCS faces a critical limitation: the planet has only about 50 years of oil and gas reserves left. After investing billions in CCS infrastructure, its utility would diminish as the oil industry declines.

Utilizing CCS to mitigate emissions from the oil sector makes little financial or business sense; those resources should instead be allocated towards genuine decarbonization technologies, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear energy.

Despite these realities, oil companies are aggressively promoting CCS to secure their futures.

Vicki Hollub, CEO of Occidental Petroleum, a leading U.S. oil firm and an active participant at COP28, recently stated that CCS would “preserve our industry” and grant it a “license to operate for the next 60, 70, 80 years.” She even suggested that CCS could enhance current oil extraction efforts.

However, this rhetoric lacks alignment with scientific data. Yet, alongside thousands of fossil fuel-linked delegates at COP28, she persists in promoting this misleading narrative, directly opposing the scientifically sound and economically viable strategy of instituting a global fossil fuel phase-out.

COP28 represents a critical opportunity to safeguard our planet. The IEA has urged for a 50% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2035 and an immediate halt to new fossil fuel investments if we aim to avert climate catastrophe. Achieving these goals necessitates robust global legislation without delay, as transitioning away from fossil fuels requires extensive preparation. Unfortunately, oil magnates, producing nations, and lobbyists are advocating for a scientifically unfounded alternative that serves their interests while undermining the urgent need for change. Do they genuinely believe CCS is their solution? Likely not; the economic realities are too stark to ignore. However, many governments and influential political entities derive power from oil, leading to the promotion of CCS as a legitimate alternative to the necessary eradication of the fossil fuel industry.

Thank you for reading! Your support enables content like this. To support my work or access articles early, follow me and my project Planet Earth & Beyond on Bluesky or X.

(Originally published on PlanetEarthAndBeyond.co)

Sources: Climate Change News, Hindustan Times, FT, The Guardian, C40, Reuters, BBC