Dave Borlace dismantles the comforting narrative that technology alone will save us from climate catastrophe, arguing that carbon capture is less a solution and more a "subsidy machine" designed to extend the life of fossil fuels. His most startling claim isn't just that the technology is expensive, but that the geological reality of storage capacity is a fraction of what the industry has promised for decades. For busy leaders weighing energy policy, the evidence suggests that betting on carbon capture is a dangerous distraction from the only proven path forward: rapid electrification.
The Scale of the Illusion
Borlace begins by exposing the sheer mathematical impossibility of the current carbon capture trajectory. He notes that while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates a need to capture 8.7 billion tons of CO2 annually to limit warming to 1.5 degrees, the entire global industry manages to capture "just a little over 1/ half of 1% of that IPCC requirement." This discrepancy is not a minor logistical hurdle; it is a fundamental failure of scale.
The author highlights the deceptive simplicity of the proposal, where lobbyists suggest governments simply "bolt giant vacuum cleaners onto the smoke stacks of all their power stations and factories to suck up all their greenhouse gases." While this sounds like a neat engineering fix, Borlace points out that the real-world costs are prohibitive. Capturing CO2 from dilute flue gases can cost between $40 and $120 per ton, a figure that excludes the massive energy penalty required to run the systems. In fact, retrofitting a coal plant can increase its fuel use by up to 40%, creating a vicious cycle where burning more fuel is required just to capture the emissions.
"The economics don't work without subsidies or oil revenue. The climate benefits are undermined by EO [Enhanced Oil Recovery]. The scale is tiny compared to global emissions. And the track record is littered with underperformance."
This analysis is particularly damning because it strips away the political theater to reveal the financial mechanics. Borlace argues that the industry's primary motivation is not climate mitigation but "Enhanced Oil Recovery," a process where captured CO2 is pumped into depleted wells to squeeze out more crude oil. He notes that "between 80 and 90% of all CO2 ever captured has ended up being used to extract oil from depleted seams." Critics might argue that any carbon removed is better than none, but Borlace correctly identifies the paradox: using captured carbon to produce more fossil fuel often results in a net negative or negligible climate benefit.
The Geological Reality Check
Perhaps the most significant contribution of this piece is its reliance on new research from the journal Nature, which challenges the industry's assumptions about storage capacity. For years, the fossil fuel sector has claimed there are 14,000 gigatons of storage space available. Borlace cites new findings that drastically reduce this estimate, establishing a "prudent planetary limit of only around 1,460 billion tons."
"The strong conclusion of the paper is that only stringent near-term gross emissions reductions can lower the risk of breaching this limit before the year 2200, which of course is a date that is far too far into the future for us humans to give a damn about."
This section effectively dismantles the "wait and see" approach. Borlace emphasizes that the industry's claims rely on "undiscovered" storage sites that may not exist or be economically viable. He points to high-profile failures, such as Chevron's Gorgon project in Australia and Equinor's Sleipner facility in Norway, where actual capture rates fell drastically short of projections. These are not isolated incidents but evidence of a systemic overpromising.
The argument here is that carbon capture is being sold as a "catch all solution to enable fossil fuels to continue business as usual," when in reality, it is a "lifeline for oil and gas producers rather than a lifeline for the climate." While some proponents argue that carbon capture is essential for "hard to abate" sectors like steel and cement, Borlace concedes this point only to argue that these are minor contributors compared to the massive emissions from power generation and transport, where renewables are already cheaper and more effective.
"Let's not get seduced into using CCS as a catch all solution to enable fossil fuels to continue business as usual because the evidence suggests it's more of a lifeline for oil and gas producers than a lifeline for the climate."
Bottom Line
Borlace's strongest asset is his ability to translate complex economic and geological data into a clear narrative of deception, proving that the "perfect solution" offered by lobbyists is mathematically and financially broken. The argument's vulnerability lies in its absolute dismissal of carbon capture's niche utility, which some experts argue is still necessary for specific industrial processes, though the author rightly insists this should not delay the broader transition. The most critical takeaway for policymakers is that relying on carbon capture to meet climate goals is a gamble with odds that have already been mathematically disproven.