In 2015, 197 countries attended the Paris Climate Change Conference and negotiated the Paris Climate Agreement – a treaty with the overarching goal of limiting global temperature change to prevent severe climate impacts. [1] In the years since the Agreement, reports have continuously shown that the global community is progressing too slowly to meet its targets for curbing rising temperatures. [2] A recent study suggests that, to get back on track, we would have to triple our renewable energy capacity and use in the next seven years. [3] As such, it is increasingly clear that an updated strategy, whereby negative emissions technologies are employed to retroactively address our failure to sufficiently curb emissions, will be required. [4]
Enter Direct Air Capture (DAC): a technology invented in 1999 to separate emitted carbon from the air, allowing it to be physically stored or recycled. [5] Unlike point source air capture, which scrubs pollutants from emissions as they are released, DAC can be used to remove diffuse carbon from ambient air, i.e., the general atmosphere itself, regardless of location. [6] This means countries with net-neutral emissions can positively counteract the emissions of other countries. Also, DAC does not require a shift away from fossil fuels, allowing it to be implemented by newly industrializing countries who cannot begin the transition toward renewable energy without unfairly denying energy access to millions of already impoverished people. [7] Finally, the global community could, theoretically, reach net-negative emissions and begin to remove emitted carbon from the air – gradually reversing the greenhouse effect and potentially climate change itself. [8]
Despite this enormous potential, the global community has been slow to incorporate DAC into its climate change programs. This is because DAC is only recently becoming techno-economically feasible, as the cost of capturing and storing was, initially, higher than the price set on emissions by most government programs. [9] However, as costs are continually reduced, and government programs penalize emissions more stringently, DAC will become increasingly feasible for widespread implementation. [10]
The United States, for example, has just begun to embrace DAC as a viable weapon in its arsenal for combatting climate change. In 2022, the Department of Energy under President Joe Biden announced a $3.5 billion investment to fund four large-scale DAC facilities. [11] Construction began in June 2023 in Texas on the largest DAC facility in the world, capable of capturing and storing 500,000 tons of carbon every year. [12] While this would only account for 0.01% of the U.S.’ annual emissions, the facility can set an important precedent, both by demonstrating the financial viability of DAC and by easing the way toward the economies of scale necessary for its widespread implementation. [13]
Not everyone is lauding these historic developments, though. Surprisingly, environmentalists are some of the largest critics of DAC technology. Jonathan Foley, executive director of Project Drawdown (a climate emergency response organization), said of the Texas project receiving public funds: “If you just buried dollar bills it would make more sense. . . . [I]t’s a huge greenwashing exercise and we are falling for it.” [14] In other words, the allegation is that DAC provides minimal benefits while giving the appearance of environmental consciousness, allowing polluters to continue their harmful practices with misguided public support. [15]
This allegation is flawed because it evaluates DAC as a stand-alone project, rather than one piece of the larger fight against climate change. Further, the fact that DAC does not directly interfere with the fossil fuel industry is beneficial. As many climate activists know, the power and influence of “big oil” is one of the largest obstacles to effecting meaningful progress in climate change. [16] Relatedly, conservatives and the Republican party generally oppose efforts at environmental protections, due to the perception of negative economic effects. [17] However, conservatives are often supportive of DAC, because it is a market-based solution that creates jobs and does not carry the stigma of harming the economy. [18]
Therein lies the true marvel of DAC; in even the worst case, it is a realistic market-based option for emission mitigation that conservatives and big oil will support. But, as we independently transition to renewable energy, it holds the potential for net-negative annual emissions globally and the potential to reverse climate change, not just for the U.S., but for the world.
[1] The Paris Agreement, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (accessed 10/19/2023), https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement.
[2] Katie Lebling et al., Climate action must progress far faster to achieve 1.5°C goal, World Economic Forum (November 23, 2020), https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/11/climate-action-emissions-target-paris-agreement/.
[3] Andrew Freedman, Paris Agreement’s most ambitious target still within reach: report, Axios (September 26, 2023), https://www.axios.com/2023/09/26/paris-agreement-climate-target-iea.
[4] Frank Swain, The device that reverses CO2 emissions, BBC (March 11, 2021), https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210310-the-trillion-dollar-plan-to-capture-co2.
[5] Eloy S. Sanz-Pérez et al., Direct Capture of CO2 from Ambient Air, ACS Publications (August 25, 2016) https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00173.
[6] Id.
[7] Rahul Tongia, It is unfair to push poor countries to reach zero carbon emissions too early, Brookings (October 26, 2022), https://www.brookings.edu/articles/it-is-unfair-to-push-poor-countries-to-reach-zero-carbon-emissions-too-early/; Swain, supra note 3.
[8] Net Zero Emissions, MIT (December 16, 2022), https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/net-zero-emissions#:~:text=Net%20negative%20emissions%20is%20a%20goal%20that%20goes,of%20the%20climate%20change%20we%20have%20already%20caused.
[9] Sanz-Pérez, supra note 4.
[10] Katie Lebling et al., 6 Things to Know about Direct Air Capture, World Resources Institute (May 2, 2022), https://www.wri.org/insights/direct-air-capture-resource-considerations-and-costs-carbon-removal.
[11] Biden Administration Launches $3.5 Billion Program to Capture Carbon Pollution from the Air, Department of Energy (May 19, 2022), https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-administration-launches-35-billion-program-capture-carbon-pollution-air-0.
[12] Oliver Milman, The world’s biggest carbon capture facility is being built in Texas. Will it work? The Guardian (September 12, 2023), https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/12/carbon-capture-texas-worlds-biggest-will-it-work.
[13] Hannah Ritchie et al., CO2 Emissions, Our World in Data, https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions#citation.
[14] Milman, supra note 11.
[15] Deena Robinson, What is Greenwashing and How to Avoid It, Earth.org (November 13, 2022), https://earth.org/what-is-greenwashing/.
[16] Alvin Powell, Tracing Big Oil’s PR war to delay action on climate change, Harvard Gazette (September 28, 2021), https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/09/oil-companies-discourage-climate-action-study-says/.
[17] Domenico Montanaro, Three-quarters of Republicans prioritize the economy over climate change, national public radio (August 3, 2023), https://www.npr.org/2023/08/03/1191678009/climate-change-republicans-economy-natural-disasters-biden-trump-poll.
[18] Allison Prang et al., Americans like direct air capture, with caveats, politico (May 18, 2023), https://www.politico.com/newsletters/the-long-game/2023/05/18/americans-like-direct-air-capture-with-caveats-00097566.