Carbon capture and storage is one of the most talked-about technologies in the race to reduce CO2 emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change. While energy companies like Equinor promote CCS as a vital climate solution, others argue it’s a risky distraction from the real work of transitioning away from fossil fuels.

In this article, we break down what carbon capture and storage is, how it works, explore the pros and cons, and explain why it is not the silver bullet it’s often made out to be.

What is it and how does it work?

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a method of capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from industrial processes or power generation, and storing them underground to prevent the CO2 from entering the atmosphere. This article will mainly cover the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel production, such as oil and gas.

CCS is designed to reduce greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions without stopping fossil fuel production, making it a cornerstone of many fossil fuel companies' “low-carbon solution”. Equinor, for instance, uses CCS to market itself as part of the climate solution, all the same while scrapping their renewable energy ambitions, and ramping up oil and gas production.

CCS is, however, a new and expensive technology, and we do not know the long term effects of storing CO2 underneath the ground for centuries. It has an uncertain future that has not been proven at commercial scale. By relying on CCS while continuing to develop new oil and gas fields, we are dependent on the technology succeeding and that it actually will be able to store massive amounts of the world’s ghg emissions.

CSS consists of three main steps:

Capture

CO2 is captured from sources such as power plants or industrial facilities. This is typically done through chemical processes that separate CO2 from other gases.

Transport

Once captured, CO2 is compressed and transported, usually via pipelines to a storage location. Transport infrastructure is expensive, and building it takes time and energy.

Storage

CO2 is then injected deep underground, often into empty oil and gas wells. The idea is that the gas will remain trapped permanently underneath the ground, instead of being released into the atmosphere and contributing to heating the climate.

What are the pros and cons of CCS?

Pros of CCS

Reduces emissions from hard-to-abate sectors like cement and steel.
Allows existing fossil-based infrastructure to continue operating with lower emissions.
Supports climate targets in theory, when combined with other mitigation strategies.

Cons of CCS

Not commercially proven at scale: Decades of investment have yet to deliver widespread, affordable CCS solutions, capable of storing large amounts of CO2.
Energy-intensive: Capturing and storing CO2 requires 15–25% more energy, worsening pressure on already strained energy systems.
Expensive: CCS is a new technology and development of these projects is super expensive, often requiring government subsidies.
Uncertain permanence: Long-term CO2 storage comes with leak risks and monitoring challenges.

It delays the transition to renewables, allowing fossil fuel companies to continue business as usual.

Implications that comes with carbon capture and storage

While CCS might sound promising, relying on it as a way to combat climate change has serious implications. The oil industry is using CCS as a strategy to justify their continuation of extracting oil and gas, deepening the world's fossil fuel dependency.

Continuing to extract and burn fossil fuels, while hoping CCS will clean up the emissions, is a gamble with the planet’s future. If the technology fails or doesn’t scale fast enough, we lock ourselves into high-emission pathways, pushing the burden of climate change onto future generations.

While carbon capture may have a limited role in certain hard-to-decarbonize sectors like cement production, the technology remains highly unproven. The CO2 must be stored permanently and securely underground, indefinitely. The question of long-term liability and cost remains unresolved: Who will monitor and maintain storage sites in the decades and centuries to come? While it ought to be the responsibility of the oil industry, in practice, these costs are often shifted onto taxpayers and future generations.

Greenpeace activists protest in front of the Paul Löbe House in Berlin with a symbolic, 4-meter-high inflatable CO2 bomb.

Equinor and carbon capture

Equinor promotes carbon capture as a key part of its low-carbon solutions strategy, alongside electrification of oil platforms and the production of blue hydrogen. These methods aim to reduce emissions without reducing fossil fuel extraction. Equinor also uses it as a way to meet climate goals while maintaining its role as a major oil and gas producer.

Equinor has poured substantial investment into CCS infrastructure, often in partnership with the Norwegian government. One example of a CCS project is Northern Lights in Norway, where CO2 is stored under the North Sea. Northern lights is jointly owned by Equinor, Shell, and TotalEnergies, and is often promoted as a groundbreaking carbon capture and storage initiative.

While CCS in theory is actually limiting CO2 from being released into the atmosphere, Northern Lights is right now far from being able to store, for example, all of Equinor’s emissions. It is merely a way for oil companies to justify their oil and gas exploration.

The real motive behind CCS is to sustain oil and gas production under the guise of climate action. By investing in CCS, Equinor and the other oil companies are avoiding genuine responsibility for the massive emissions they cause. These technologies are being used to greenwash continued fossil fuel expansion rather than support a real transition to clean energy.

The Northern Lights project has also been criticized as a “subsidy magnet” for the oil industry. With a total cost exceeding about USD $1.71 billion, the Norwegian government is funding $1.9 billion of that amount leaving only a fraction to be paid by the oil companies themselves. This heavy public investment raises legitimate concerns about whether taxpayer money is being used wisely, and whether it is being diverted from more impactful, renewable energy solutions. Further, these public-private partnerships should instead fund renewable energy systems, not prolong fossil fuel dependency.

By focusing on CCS, Equinor shifts attention away from solar, wind, and true decarbonization. Thus, the bigger picture remains unchanged: CCS is not the future, but a sidetrack that could make the road to zero emissions more difficult.

CCS is not the solution in tackling climate change

If we’re serious about limiting warming to 1.5°C, the only path forward is reducing fossil fuel production and rapidly scaling up renewables. The idea that we can continue burning fossil fuels and just "clean up after" with CCS is not only flawed, it’s dangerous.

CCS has a role to play in very specific sectors where emissions are hard to avoid. But it cannot be the centerpiece of any serious climate strategy as it enables further fossil fuel expansion and delays systemic change.

Want to learn more about renewable energy solutions and real climate progress? Explore our climate insights here

‍