A recent article at the website CounterPunch titled, “Al Gore Puts Down ‘Climate Realism,’” responding to a TED talk given by Al Gore, says that carbon capture and storage and direct air carbon capture are “like fool’s gold,” which neither reduces the carbon content of the air to a meaningful degree nor does so in a cost-effective way. [emphasis, links added]
This is true, though not in the way or for the reasons CounterPunch writers articulated.
There are many nonsensical and false claims in the CounterPunch post; to address them all, we will focus on the post’s very interesting claims about carbon capture and storage and direct air capture.
CounterPunch writer Robert Hunziker says that one of the ways the fossil fuel industry tries to convince people that the fuels that built and maintain modern civilization are useful and good is by claiming that “carbon capture and storage and direct air capture and recycling of plastics will handle everything.”
Hunziker quotes Al Gore as saying, “These things are much better at capturing politicians than they are at capturing emissions!” He then goes on to claim that if carbon capture is “inefficient, the ‘climate realism’ argument is destroyed.”
This is true insofar as it addresses the climate “realists” who still think that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant and worth removing from the air, which this website (Climate Realism) in particular does not agree with.
Indeed, if climate apologists in the oil industry and other industries that invest in credits generated by direct air capture are right and CO2 is a problem that needs addressing, and carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the way to go, then their argument is ruined if carbon capture is a farce.
If CCS does not accomplish what proponents claim at realistic costs, then their argument is destroyed. CounterPunch and Hunziker are right.
This is not the argument that most “climate realists” make, however. CCS is a scam, for the reasons Hunziker addresses, but also because it is unnecessary. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and there is nothing wrong with using fossil fuels.
“Carbon capture cannot physically cost-effectively reduce emissions,” Hunziker writes, then cites an article posted by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, among others, to show that carbon capture is inefficient and costly.
This is true.
A Heartland Institute study from January of this year (2025) demonstrated how nothing about CCS is worth the current trend of government-funded CCS companies being able to use eminent domain to take private land to install CCS pipelines. CCS projects are not profitable on their own.
According to the study, “the overall CCS process can cost up to $144 per metric ton,” not including the initial capital investment of a commercial-scale project, which can cost billions.
The Heartland study estimates that global expenses on CCS projects as of 2023 were around $20 billion, with up to $200 billion worth of projects approved.
Unfortunately, members of both the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States advocate for subsidizing CCS projects heavily to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars.
As explained in this Climate Realism post, the majority of government Research & Development dollars given to coal companies by the government are earmarked for CCS and other net-zero aims.
While both trees and carbon capture technologies play a role in removing CO2 from the atmosphere, trees are generally considered more efficient at carbon sequestration due to their lower cost, self-powered nature, and established presence as a natural carbon sink.
Simply plant more trees if you want to capture CO2 directly out of the air.
CCS at the power plant level makes electricity more expensive by necessity due to the amazingly high cost of installing and using the energy-intensive equipment, and retrofits on plants can reduce the output of a coal power plant by up to 28 percent.
There is one situation in which carbon capture is not a scam, and that is Carbon Capture Utilization, in which captured gas is injected to help stimulate oil production in Enhanced Oil Recovery operations. Climate activists and sympathetic media are unsurprisingly not appreciative of this use.
Where CounterPunch and climate realists really differ on this point is this: CCS isn’t only expensive and inefficient, it is unnecessary.
CO2 emissions are not causing a climate emergency; weather is not getting more extreme, and none of the alleged “tipping points” we’ve been warned about for decades are any closer to being crossed, despite media claims.
In the end, CounterPunch is correct to point out that CCS is a scam, it absolutely is, and is a massive waste of billions of dollars. They missed the main reason, though, and that is that it is totally unnecessary.
In no way does rejecting carbon capture and storage “put down” Climate Realism; Al Gore and CounterPunch will need to find another strategy.
Read more at Climate Realism
