Significant? Direct air capture, despite its scale and expense (what attracts the industry) could reduce global emissions by at most 2%. And prior to that, carbon storage would require a nation-wide grid of pipelines to move the CO2from the capture facilities to proper geological caverns. Then it would take several hundred years of constant vigilance to ensure it doesn't escape. [viii]
Moreover, large scale implementation would slow the transition to renewables. In fact, most captured CO2is used for fracking. Compressed CO2 is injected into depleted reservoirs, inflating and pushing oil upward for extraction. In other words, its introducing new oil worth an estimated 90% of its own carbon back into the air, in a continuous cycle. [ix]
Moreover, government funding for carbon capture is helping the fossil fuel industry build new infrastructure. Last year the CCC-authored, 45Q Bill expanded tax credit for carbon capture. This year the Coalition gifted Senate the Use It Act, which, if passed, allots Federal and State Resources for building pipelines to transport carbon, again, most to oilfields.
Another policy thinktank, The Carbon Capture & Storage Association (CCSA), an arm of BP, says carbon capture is 'crucial'. However, BP says it will not undertake "material" projects without government funding. [x]
Spencer Dale, BP's chief economist just released a report warning us against relying on green options. Renewable energy would have to grow at twice its current rate just to offset our coal use. According to Dale, the same could be achieved by replacing a mere 10% of coal energy with natural gas.
Of course, r eplacing all coal plants with new gas plants will not cut emissions by nearly enough to keep temperatures under +2.5 degrees. [xi] Not to mention, doubling our rate of transition to renewables is entirely within reach, and full transition isn't far, cost-wise, beyond what we'd recover by ending fossil fuel subsidies. Reforming our upper tax bracket would supply the rest.
If we need further convincing, Perry just awarded $24million in Federal Grants for carbon capture research, so clearly, it must not work. However, Trump just lifted Obama's order that coal plants use it, which doesn't bolster gas use at all. If he goes far too far, liberals might -might- retake the hill. Good thing we have Democrats to oppose him.
Joe Biden's environmental plan "could include fossil fuel options like natural gas and carbon capture technology, which limit emissions from coal plants and other industrial facilities." However, Biden had to retract his first draft of said plan because it literally plagiarized the Carbon Capture Coalition!
Kirsten Gillibrand's website brags of her and Chuck Shummer procuring $1.2 million for the Pall Corporation for Carbon Capture Research.
Cory Booker helped procure $800million for Princeton Research on the matter.
Michael Bennet recently co-sponsored a bill, the Carbon Capture Improvement Act, that would allow businesses to use private activity bonds (PABs) issued by local or state governments to finance a carbon capture project. He quotes: "This is significant step to ensure we"keep our air clean as the threat of climate change continues to grow." [xii]
Hickenlooper, who calls himself a scientist, will also begin "large-scale investment in government-funded climate technology research. "One of the pathways is to invest in carbon capture, utilization, and storage technology." "The market," he adds, "is the key, not the enemy."
Beto's plan isn't crystal clear, but his website promises more than $1 trillionin tax incentives to "accelerate the scale up of nascent technologies enabling reductions in greenhouse gas emissions."