A recent article from the Guardian, questioning the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in Australia, repeatedly and confusingly frames the technology as if it were intended to neutralise all global emissions. To be clear, CCS is not a silver bullet for economy-wide decarbonisation. It is one of a suite of solutions needed to achieve our global climate goals, playing a particularly important function in reducing emissions from hard-to-abate industries where alternatives are limited. It is not a replacement for, but works alongside, renewables, energy efficiency, electrification, and other climate technologies and efforts to deliver meaningful emissions reductions.
Comparing the cumulative CO₂ stored by CCS projects to total global emissions risks obscuring the real purpose and impact of the technology. Like any industrial technology, CCS improves over time as projects scale and experience grows, a trajectory we have seen across hundreds of projects worldwide. Early operational challenges, including those faced by first-of-a-kind facilities, are part of the normal learning curve and do not undermine the technology’s potential or effectiveness.
The global CCS landscape is advancing. The Institute’s Global Status of CCS 2025 report shows 77 commercial projects operating worldwide and 47 in construction. Across the project pipeline, hundreds of additional projects are moving through various stages of development.
Independent data further confirms that CO₂ is being safely and permanently stored: the London Register of Subsurface CO₂ Storage shows that more than 380 million tonnes of CO₂ have been injected and kept underground since 1996, with annual storage rising year‑on‑year, a clear sign of technology maturation.
Like any technology (including renewables in their early decades) CCS improves with experience, project optimisation and supportive policy frameworks. The relevant question is not whether CCS does everything, but whether it does the specific job it is intended to do – capturing and storing CO₂ that would otherwise enter the atmosphere. On that measure, selectively citing the challenges of specific projects without context of global deployment and progress, does not amount to a serious critique.
Rigid ideology about which tools should (or shouldn’t) be used to meet our global climate targets is a risky basis for climate policy. Addressing our shared challenge requires evidence‑based, pragmatic use of all technologies that can safely reduce emissions where most appropriate.
