Dave Borlace cuts through the techno-optimism surrounding climate solutions to expose a dangerous paradox: the very mechanism the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to keep global warming under 2°C could trigger a catastrophic competition for land and water. While many analysts focus on the engineering feasibility of carbon capture, Borlace forces a reckoning with the sheer physical scale required, arguing that the proposed solution might be as destructive as the problem it aims to solve.
The Scale of the Impossible
The core of Borlace's argument rests on a simple, terrifying arithmetic. The IPCC's projections assume that Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) will remove up to 14 billion tons of CO2 per year by 2100. Borlace highlights the staggering land requirements needed to achieve this, noting that "according to the IPCC the average amount of BECCS in the RCP Pathways requires 25 to 46% of arable and permanent crop area in 201100." This is not a marginal adjustment to current farming; it is a fundamental reshaping of the planet's surface.
He leans heavily on the findings of the "avoid 2" study to illustrate the impossibility of the task. The study suggests that even dedicating an area the size of Australia to biomass would only yield 500 billion tons of removal, whereas the IPCC pathways demand 1,300 billion tons. "You'd probably need something more like the size of Africa in addition to get to the upper number and that's clearly not viable proposition," Borlace observes. This framing is effective because it moves the debate from abstract tons of carbon to concrete geography, making the logistical hurdle undeniable.
The resource strain extends beyond land. Borlace points out that the intensive agriculture required would likely "double the global consumption of both those commodities" regarding water and fertilizer. This creates a grim trade-off: solving the climate crisis by exacerbating a potential water crisis for billions. "At least 5 billion people could be facing water shortages by 2050 then BECCS starts to look like it might put an extra pressure on world resources that we may really struggle to cope with," he warns. Critics might argue that technological advances in drought-resistant crops could mitigate this, but Borlace's reliance on current agricultural baselines suggests the timeline for such innovation is too slow to match the urgency of the climate mandate.
The Hidden Cost of "Green" Energy
Perhaps the most damning critique Borlace offers is that the technology is not as carbon-negative as advertised. The process of preparing the land, transporting the biomass, and running the machinery releases significant carbon. Citing a study by the Royal Society of Chemistry, he notes that "depending on the conditions of its deployment BECCS could lead to both carbon positive and carbon negative results." This ambiguity undermines the certainty that policymakers need when betting their climate strategies on a single technology.
Furthermore, Borlace exposes a critical conflict of interest within the fossil fuel industry's embrace of carbon capture. The technology is often promoted as a climate savior, yet it serves a lucrative secondary purpose for oil companies. "Flooding oil reservoirs with CO2 allows for the recovery of a far higher proportion of oil than would be possible with conventional means," he explains. This practice, known as enhanced oil recovery, allows the industry to extract more fossil fuels while claiming the carbon is being stored. Borlace cuts through the corporate spin, stating, "despite the fact that enhanced oil recovery leads to the recovery and burning of potentially vast quantities of fossil fuel which would otherwise have remained under the ground use of CO2 for this purpose is classed as a form of carbon capture and storage."
This revelation reframes the entire industry's enthusiasm. It is not a sudden altruistic pivot; it is a strategy to extend the life of fossil fuel extraction. The argument lands with force because it connects the dots between climate policy and corporate profit motives, suggesting that the push for BECCS may be a Trojan horse for continued oil production.
The promotion of carbon capture technologies like BECCS for climate change mitigation coincides with the oil industry's fast growing demand for cheap continuous supplies of CO2.
The Neglected Natural Solution
In contrast to the industrial complexity of BECCS, Borlace pivots to a solution that is already available and requires no new infrastructure: protecting existing ecosystems. He cites a report by 40 scientists who argue that preserving forests is far more efficient than attempting to engineer a new carbon sink. "Raising the world's forests would release more than 3 trillion tons of carbon dioxide more than the amount locked up in identified Global reserves of oil coal and gas," he writes, emphasizing the risk of disturbing natural reservoirs.
The logic here is straightforward and compelling. Instead of planting monocultures that displace food production and biodiversity, the focus should be on maintaining the complex ecosystems that already exist. "By protecting and restoring forests the world would achieve 18% of the emissions mitigation needed by 2030 to avoid runaway climate change," Borlace concludes. This argument challenges the narrative that we need a technological silver bullet. It suggests that the most effective tool is restraint and conservation, a message that is often drowned out by the allure of high-tech fixes.
Bottom Line
Dave Borlace's analysis succeeds in stripping away the glossy veneer of BECCS to reveal a strategy fraught with ecological and economic peril. His strongest point is the demonstration that the land and water requirements for the technology are physically unviable at the scale demanded by current climate models. However, the piece's greatest vulnerability is its reliance on the assumption that political will can shift from high-tech industrial solutions to the harder, less glamorous work of forest protection and decarbonization. The reader must watch for whether governments continue to bank on a technology that may ultimately serve the fossil fuel industry more than the climate.