Carbon capture delays

Carbon capture technology isn’t a climate solution—it’s a delay mechanism that allows continued fossil fuel extraction while creating new profit streams from climate anxiety. The industry has successfully reframed procrastination as progress.

──── The delay value proposition

Carbon capture serves fossil fuel companies by extending the profitable lifespan of existing infrastructure. Instead of stranded assets, oil and gas facilities become “future carbon capture sites.”

This transforms immediate shutdown costs into long-term revenue opportunities. Companies can continue extracting while promising eventual capture, pushing actual emissions reduction decades into the future.

The technology provides political cover for continued expansion. “We’re working on carbon capture” becomes justification for new drilling permits and pipeline projects.

This is temporal arbitrage: trading immediate climate action for future technological promises.

──── Mathematical impossibility as business model

Current carbon capture technology removes roughly 0.01% of annual global emissions while requiring massive energy inputs that often increase net emissions.

The largest facility captures 4,000 tons annually. Global emissions are 37 billion tons annually. At current rates, we would need 9.25 million such facilities to capture one year’s emissions.

The math doesn’t work, but the investment dollars do. Billions flow into carbon capture research while proven renewable technologies face funding obstacles.

Companies profit from the research phase without ever needing to deliver meaningful results.

──── Subsidy extraction mechanism

Carbon capture qualifies for massive government subsidies through tax credits and direct funding. The 45Q tax credit provides up to $180 per ton for captured carbon.

Companies can claim credits for captured carbon that gets used for enhanced oil recovery—literally using climate subsidies to extract more fossil fuels.

Research grants, pilot project funding, and demonstration facility subsidies create revenue streams independent of actual climate impact.

The industry has optimized for subsidy capture rather than carbon capture.

──── Enhanced oil recovery greenwashing

Most captured carbon gets injected into oil wells to extract additional petroleum. This process increases total emissions while claiming carbon reduction credits.

Companies count the injected carbon as “captured” while ignoring the additional emissions from the oil extracted using that carbon.

Enhanced oil recovery using captured carbon can increase well productivity by 30-50%, extending the profitable life of supposedly depleted fields.

This transforms carbon capture into a fossil fuel extraction technology marketed as climate action.

──── Technological complexity as delay tactic

Carbon capture’s technical challenges provide endless justification for delays:

“We need better materials science.” “The compression technology isn’t ready.” “Storage site geology requires more study.” “Regulatory frameworks need development.”

Each technical hurdle justifies another research phase, another funding round, another delay in implementing actual emissions reductions.

Meanwhile, proven technologies like solar and wind face regulatory obstacles while carbon capture receives fast-track approvals.

──── Scale economics of procrastination

Carbon capture creates institutional incentives for delay at every level:

Energy companies can postpone facility shutdowns while maintaining exploration budgets. Research institutions receive ongoing funding for perpetual development projects. Politicians can claim climate action without imposing costs on fossil fuel constituents.

Equipment manufacturers develop new markets for specialized technology. Consulting firms advise on implementation strategies that never quite reach implementation.

The entire ecosystem profits from the appearance of progress without actual progress.

──── Direct air capture mythology

Direct air capture represents the ultimate delay technology: promising to remove carbon from anywhere while requiring enormous energy inputs.

Current direct air capture costs $400-600 per ton while solar power costs continue declining. The same money invested in renewable energy would prevent far more emissions.

But preventing emissions doesn’t create new industrial sectors or justify continued fossil fuel operations.

Direct air capture allows continued emissions today in exchange for expensive removal later—if the technology ever scales.

──── Regulatory capture through complexity

Carbon capture’s technical complexity allows industry experts to dominate regulatory discussions. Fossil fuel engineers become climate policy advisors.

Regulations get written by the same companies that profit from delayed implementation. Safety standards prioritize facility protection over climate effectiveness.

Environmental reviews focus on local impacts while ignoring global climate effects. Carbon capture projects receive environmental approval while renewable projects face extended permitting delays.

──── Investment flow redirection

Carbon capture diverts climate investment away from proven renewable technologies toward speculative future solutions.

Venture capital flows into carbon capture startups while renewable energy projects struggle for financing. Government research budgets prioritize breakthrough technologies over technology deployment.

This creates artificial scarcity of capital for immediate emissions reduction while abundantly funding long-term research projects.

──── International delay coordination

Carbon capture provides coordination mechanisms for global delay tactics:

International carbon capture research consortiums create multilateral justifications for continued emissions. Technology sharing agreements allow countries to claim progress while maintaining fossil fuel dependencies.

Developing countries get promised future carbon capture access in exchange for accepting continued developed world emissions.

──── Corporate accounting manipulation

Carbon capture allows companies to claim “net zero” targets while increasing absolute emissions:

Companies can count promised future carbon capture against current emissions in sustainability reporting. Pilot projects get scaled up in projections without actual implementation timelines.

“Carbon negative” claims include theoretical capture capacity rather than actual operations.

Accounting standards allow emission increases if offset by capture promises, regardless of delivery timelines.

──── Stranded asset resurrection

Carbon capture transforms stranded fossil fuel assets into climate infrastructure investments:

Coal plants become “carbon capture ready facilities.” Oil refineries get retrofitted for “clean operations.” Natural gas pipelines become “carbon transport infrastructure.”

This prevents the economic losses that would force rapid renewable transitions while creating new revenue streams from climate policy.

──── Political delay synchronization

Carbon capture aligns political timelines with electoral cycles rather than climate necessity:

Research phases extend beyond current political terms, allowing politicians to promise action without delivering results. Demonstration projects provide ribbon-cutting opportunities without operational requirements.

“Committed to carbon capture by 2035” pushes actual implementation beyond current leadership tenure.

──── The measurement problem

Carbon capture success gets measured by investment dollars and research progress rather than atmospheric carbon reduction.

“Breakthrough” announcements focus on efficiency improvements to existing technology rather than deployment scale. Media coverage emphasizes potential rather than actual capture volumes.

Climate accounting includes promised capture in emissions reduction calculations, creating false progress metrics.

────────────────────────────────────────

Carbon capture technology serves as an elaborate delay mechanism that allows continued fossil fuel operations while creating new profit opportunities from climate concern.

The industry has successfully transformed climate urgency into investment opportunity, redirecting resources away from immediate emissions reduction toward indefinite technological development.

Every dollar invested in carbon capture research is a dollar not invested in renewable deployment. Every year spent developing capture technology is a year of continued emissions.

The fundamental question isn’t whether carbon capture technology could theoretically work, but whether betting civilization’s future on unproven technology serves anyone other than fossil fuel shareholders.

Carbon capture delays climate action while creating the illusion of climate action. This may be the most successful greenwashing operation in human history.