The Michigan legislature is considering a package of bills (SB 1131, 1132, and 1133) that would make it easier for industries and planet-warming gas emitters to install or invest in carbon capture and storage (CCS) options. In CCS systems, greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are captured away from the atmosphere, transported, and stored in solid or liquid forms. In Michigan, the process would typically capture emissions and inject them as compressed liquid deep underground with injection wells. Locked away from the atmosphere, the sequestered carbon dioxide can’t warm the planet.
Recent media reports have put forward the notion that industry, labor, and environmental groups are all aligned in their support of the bill package. That is a misrepresentation. Only one environmental group is represented in the coalition pushing for passage of the bills as proposed. Most environmental groups remain skeptical of the proposal due to several glaring loopholes and regulatory omissions.
When carbon capture policies are not implemented with rigorous, stringent oversight, the following happens:
It makes it easier to extract even more fossil fuels, defeating the entire purpose of carbon capture and storage.
First and foremost, several fossil fuel companies have stated they intend to use CCS deep injection wells to extract more fossil fuels. Compressed carbon dioxide can be used to displace oil and gas similar to fracking with pressurized water. By pulling more fossil fuels out of the ground for combustion that releases even more planet-warming gases into the atmosphere, the intent defeats the entire purpose of investing in CCS systems in the first place.
The solution is to ban the use of CCS systems for the purpose of extracting additional fossil fuels.
It makes it easier for entities to greenwash their practices, to game carbon offset markets, and to claim that they’re taking action on climate change.
Many in heavy industry want to make it easier to invest in carbon capture and storage so they can continue to emit planet-warming gases during their operations. They want to use it as an excuse to continue business as usual rather than actually reduce pollution and emissions. Companies can point to CCS systems to demonstrate novel climate action, putting forth a more visible, exciting public relations story than simply reducing the energy required to make their products.
The solution is to deny the use of CCS systems for the purpose of offsetting carbon emissions due to inefficiencies or where other operational changes could actually reduce the fossil fuels used. Industry must reduce emissions as much as possible through traditional means first, with CCS allowed to cover only the leftovers.
Leaks are a real threat to people and wildlife.
There are lots of examples from pilot studies of CCS storage mechanisms leaking the captured carbon dioxide-pollutant soup, such as leaks identified in Illinois, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Carbon dioxide at abnormally high atmospheric levels displaces oxygen, threatens public health and wildlife, contaminates aquifers, and changes delicate chemical balances within ecosystems.
Not only can leaks contaminate drinking water, but CO2 mixed with water creates carbonic acid. Creating acidic conditions dissolves underground minerals, can cause underground instability, and can mobilize harmful substances like arsenic, uranium, radium, heavy metals and volatile organic compounds. Without the subsurface material to hold everything in place, those substances can find pathways to human contact.
A part of the solution is for the state to require robust monitoring for leaks and oversight of system maintenance by independent agencies that have no financial conflict of interest.
Carbon capture systems are inefficient, and when improperly operated, can actually cause an increase in emissions.
Carbon capture systems require a lot of energy to run, a problem referred to as the “energy penalty.” According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the energy penalty typically ranges from 13–44%. That means it’s usually more efficient and cost-effective to avoid using fossil fuels in the first place. When CCS systems are powered by energy generated by fossil fuels, it’s probable that the action of capturing and transporting the emissions can actually lead to greater net emissions overall.
To avoid that problem, regulations of carbon capture must include a monitoring and permitting program that ensures overall emissions are actually being reduced with the introduction of carbon capture technologies.
The Necessity of Carbon Capture Systems
All that said, most recent research suggests that large amounts of carbon dioxide could be stored underground with a small risk of leakage in the next 10,000 years. If—and this is an important if—the mechanism for capture and storage is built properly, in suitable locations, and the system is monitored closely for problems over time. In cases where systems are poorly managed or overseen by a company with a financial interest in spending as little as possible, we should expect lots of leaks and negative impacts. As currently framed in the current Michigan bill package, there is an increased risk of poorly, quickly designed systems without sufficient regulatory oversight.
Climatologists generally agree that some amount of carbon capture and storage will be needed over the coming decades to avert the worst effects of climate change and meet international climate goals. The IPCC has reported in recent years on the realistic need for CCS systems, pointing out that avoiding climate change will cost the planet twice as much without investment in CCS. There are critical sectors of the economy that will not be able to reduce emissions fast enough or to a significant degree with foreseeable technology, so capturing and storing carbon is one of few alternatives for those industries.
As in the figure above from UNEP, 2017, carbon removal technologies have a role to play in reaching net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Reducing emissions through conventional means, such as renewable energy production and improving efficiency, account for most reductions in emissions. Carbon removal technology, even in the best-case scenario accounts for a smaller but important piece to counterbalance emitting technologies that don’t have a good alternative.
Putting it all together, CCS systems will almost certainly be necessary to address climate change. But… CCS systems need to be well-built, monitored carefully, and should never be allowed to be used in a way that makes it easier to emit more carbon into the atmosphere. The good news is that CCS research is evolving rapidly, providing a wide array of ways to store carbon. Eventually, it’s likely that captured carbon will even be used in the large-scale manufacturing of common materials like concrete, composites, and steel.
Most environmental organizations in Michigan want the state to develop specific regulations and protections for the climate, water, and public health related to CCS. Current proposals and existing federal regulations are seen as insufficient or too generic to be adequate. Several prominent Michigan environmentalists, like Nicholas Occhipinti of the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, suggest that the legislature should follow an integrated assessment approach to determine all the benefits and perils of CCS policy changes in Michigan before moving forward. As it stands, the SB 1131-1132-1133 package isn’t ready for passage, but the need for CCS systems is clear, as is the need to make sure we understand all the environmental and economic factors.