Tag: climate impact

‘The Future of CCS Can No Longer Be Assumed’ (a supporter rethinks …)

Martin Jagger, a climate activist specializing in carbon capture & storage, recently wrote a sobering post on the progress of this technology in addressing the assumed-to-be climate crisis. This problematic approach is another example of the tears-in-the-ocean choices of climate mitigation policy.

“Today, global operating nameplate capture capacity is approximately 60 million tonnes a year. If fully utilised, that would represent gross capture equivalent to roughly 14-15 hours of annual global energy and industrial emissions. Actual verified net storage is lower.”

An illustration depicting a construction site with pipes and industrial equipment, featuring a worried worker in a hard hat. The scene is marked by signs about carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects, discussing budget overruns and uncertain future. Text includes phrases like 'Reality Check', 'The Future of CCS?', and 'CCS Project Uncertain'.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“Today, global operating nameplate capture capacity is approximately 60 million tonnes a year. If fully utilised, that would represent gross capture equivalent to roughly 14-15 hours of annual global energy and industrial emissions. Actual verified net storage is lower.” (- Martin Jagger, below)

Martin Jagger, a climate activist specializing in carbon capture & storage, recently wrote a sobering post on the progress of this technology in addressing the assumed-to-be climate crisis. This problematic approach is another example of the tears-in-the-ocean choices of climate mitigation policy.

“For twenty years,” he begins, “I have argued that CCS has an important role to play in managing emissions from industries where practical alternatives remain limited.” The progress to date has been small, and the effect on global emissions minuscule. He explains:

Today, global operating nameplate capture capacity is approximately 60 million tonnes a year. If fully utilised, that would represent gross capture equivalent to roughly 14-15 hours of annual global energy and industrial emissions. Actual verified net storage is lower…. Closing even the gap between today’s operating capacity and the announced [EIA estimated 2030 pipeline would require an extraordinary acceleration in permitting, financing, construction, commissioning and sustained operating performance.

The interest and potential investment are there, he believes, but “delivery” is small and problematic.

… announcements are not delivery, storage resources are not injection capacity, and nameplate capacity is not independently verified climate impact. The next phase of CCS must therefore be more demanding than the last. By 2030, success should no longer be measured primarily by the number of projects announced, memoranda signed, licences awarded or billions committed. It should be measured by verified net tonnes securely stored, year after year. That requires a tougher delivery model.

He alludes to the problem of getting from hyperbole to practice.

We have largely solved the problem of attracting interest and announcing investment. We have not yet solved the delivery problem. That distinction matters because CCS cannot indefinitely be judged by its potential. Nor should every delay be explained by saying that the industry simply needs more policy support or more public money. After two decades, the burden of proof must begin to shift.

Continuing:

That shift also requires greater honesty about how progress is reported. Too many of the institutions responsible for advocacy and industry leadership still present CCS largely as a good-news story. New projects, funding awards and headline capacity are publicised; delays, cancellations, operating shortfalls and the absence of verified storage receive much less attention.

Final Comment

Government incentives to carbon capture and storage, formalized in the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 (Section 45Q tax credit), should be terminated, an end to please many environmentalists and the free market community. [2] The whole initiative is inconsequential to global or regional climate, and projects have been opposed by local residents in the U.S. and elsewhere. [3]

[1] Martin Jagger’s bio reads:

I am an Executive Consultant in Energy Transition Strategy and Decarbonisation Delivery with a track record of bringing operator discipline to CCS policy and projects. I established Shell’s Carbon Capture and Storage Centre of Excellence in 2007 and helped shape international frameworks for long-term CO₂ storage that informed UNFCCC CDM mechanisms and regulatory guidance.

I currently advise sovereigns, regulators and innovators on areas where policy realism, technical feasibility and capital must align. My work tests the credibility of targets, the true scaling pathways for CCS and low-carbon fuels, and the structural barriers that stall momentum – especially FID drag, subsidy distortion, infrastructure mis-sequencing and the policy-performance gap.

[2] The tax credits since 2022 are $85 per ton of CO₂ stored for dedicated geologic storage projects and $60 per ton for CO₂ utilization projects with associated storage, increased from $50 and $35 subsidies (2018) and $20 and $10 (2008). A summary of federal largess from Taxpayers for Common Sense reads:

For decades, the federal government has provided billions of dollars in both direct and indirect subsidies to support CCS technology and projects. These subsidies have included research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) funding, loan guarantees, and tax credits.

Over the past few decades some of these subsidies have gone to projects that have been repeatedly started and stopped, only to eventually collapse due to various economic issues and controversies (e.g., FutureGen, Kemper). Additionally, the 45Q tax credit, which has grown significantly in both size and scope, has been mired in fraud and waste. To date, the federal government has spent tens of billions of taxpayer dollars on CCS through research and development funding and tax credits, yet the technology is still struggling with widescale deployment issues due to high costs….

According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), Congress provided roughly $9 billion (in nominal dollars) in annual appropriations for DOE’s FECM from FY2010 to FY2023, with over $2.8 billion specifically directed towards CCS line items…. Congress appropriated $12 billion more to the technology through the infrastructure law (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, P.L. 117-58) and greatly expanded the already lucrative tax credit in the Inflation Reduction Act (Public Law 117-169).

[3] There are currently 15 operating CCS facilities in the U.S. and another 120 projects under development. The top ten projects are (verbatim):

1. Stratos Direct Air Capture (DAC) Project

Companies: Occidental Petroleum (through its subsidiary 1 Point Five) and Origis Energy
Capacity: 500, 000 metric tons of CO₂ annually
Application: Direct Air Capture powered by a dedicated solar portfolio
Source: Origis Energy Commissions 500 MWdc Swift Air Solar Projects in …

2. Calpine Baytown Energy Center CCS Project

Companies: Calpine Corporation and Exxon Mobil
Capacity: Approximately 2 million metric tons of CO₂ annually
Application: Low-carbon power generation from a new natural gas plant
Source: Calpine, Exxon Mobil sign CO 2 transportation and storage …

3. CF Industries Donaldsonville CCS Facility

Companies: CF Industries and Exxon Mobil
Capacity: A key component of Exxon Mobil’s contracted ~9 million metric tons per annum (MTA) portfolio
Application: Decarbonization of ammonia production
Source: Here’s How XOM Is Scaling Up Its CCS Footprint to Reduce Emissions

4. Google-Backed Gas Power Plant with CCS

Companies: Google and Mitsubishi Power
Capacity: Designed to capture 90% of CO₂ emissions
Application: Firm, low-carbon power for data centers
Source: Google Commits to First U.S. Gas-Fired Power Plant with Integrated …

5. California Resources Corporation (CRC) Carbon Terra Vault I (CTV I)

Company: California Resources Corporation
Capacity: Not specified; designed as a dedicated CO₂ storage facility
Application: CO₂ injection and permanent geologic storage
Source: California Resources Corporation Breaks Ground on California’s …

6. Sweetwater Carbon Storage Hub (SCS Hub)

Companies: Frontier Infrastructure and Baker Hughes
Capacity: Positioned to be one of the largest U.S. CO₂ sequestration assets (specific tonnage not provided)
Application: Multi-user CO₂ sequestration hub for industrial emitters
Source: Baker Hughes, Frontier Infrastructure Partner on Carbon Capture …

7. ADM Decatur CCS Facility

Company: Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM)
Capacity: Averages nearly 0.5 Mtpa (based on 4.5 million metric tons sequestered over a decade)
Application: Long-term industrial CCS for ethanol production
Source: ADM and Carbon Capture and Storage

8. Lake Charles Power Station Integrated CO₂ Capture Project

Company: Project supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
Capacity: Not specified; large-scale pilot
Application: Advancing capture technologies for power generation
Source: [XLS] Sheet 1 – Climate Program Portal

9. Illinois CO₂ Injection Project

Company: Unnamed Texas-based developer
Capacity: Not specified; early-stage regulatory filing
Application: New CO₂ injection and storage project
Source: CP Daily Newsletter: Wednesday February 18, 2026 – Carbon Pulse

10. Bantam DAC Facility

Company: Climeworks
Capacity: Over 5, 000 tons of CO₂ annually
Application: Direct Air Capture, noted as the largest operational DAC in the U.S. as of October 2025
Source: Facilities – CO 2 RE – Global CCS Institute

The “Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research” (PIK) and the reality

A recent study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) has shed light on the devastating economic consequences of climate change. In fact, the study was retracted due to concerns over data issues, highlighting the complexities and challenges of climate research.

A dramatic painting depicting a monstrous figure holding a flaming globe, symbolizing environmental destruction, while four scientists in lab coats kneel with their hands clasped in prayer.

A recent study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) has shed light on the devastating economic consequences of climate change. In fact, the study was retracted due to concerns over data issues, highlighting the complexities and challenges of climate research.

From The Klima Nachrichten

By Frank Bosse

We recently reported on this unfortunate PIK study on the economic consequences of the climate.
It had to be withdrawn (after some outcry in the economic world) – unfortunately much too late. The reasons: heavily falsified data in the direction of alarms and far too little assumed uncertainties.

“Isn’t this proven mistake a nice occasion to put other forecasts and climate allocations of PIK to the test?” is a logical conclusion.

Has the certainty of “serious consequences” been exaggerated in such a way for other aspects of the climate? You then inevitably end up with the developments of the jet stream due to climate change.

This strong wind band in the upper troposphere, which blows from west to east at an altitude of 8-12 km, indeed influences the weather here very much. In our latitudes, the pressure structures on the ground follow the course of the jet stream and this is highly variable.

In January 2025, we had once again provided detailed information about some wild hypotheses about the “already visible” changes. “At some point, PIK itself must come to the conclusion that an institute should by definition take care of science and therefore not interpret a “climate impact” into every weather,” one would think.

Far from it! Last summer was quite rainy and that was the reason for an interview with the RBB radio station “Radio eins” on July 21, 2025, with PIK representative Fred Hattermann. From min 1:20 there comes quickly “the old lyre”: “The jet stream is getting weaker because the North Pole is getting warmer with less ice and that leads to extremes with us”. This time, Hattermann referred to the summer rains in Germany. Was it a coincidence that the interview appointment was also the rainiest day (9 mm of rain in the area average of Germany) of the whole summer? Hard to believe!

Was the rain in 2025 unusual overall? A look at data, showing the precipitation in mm/day:

Line graph showing precipitation data in mm/day from June to August, spanning years 1950 to 2022. Red vertical lines represent daily precipitation amounts, while the green line indicates the average precipitation trend.
The figure was generated from E-Obs data using the KNMI Climate Explorer.

Is there a trend (dashed) from 1980 onwards for heavy precipitation on a single day? On how many summer days did it rain more than on this July 21, 2025?

A bar graph illustrating the number of summer days with precipitation exceeding the maximum recorded in 2025, with data points from 1980 to 2025.

By no means a real trend! The 2.5mm/day in the area average is completely inconspicuous in the context of summers back to 1950, as is the maximum daily amount. A real trend from 1980 (onset of modern climate change) is also not discernible, between 2000 and 2010 it became a bit wetter, and the average is now, after a dip until 2021, about where it was in the 80s. So, what’s the truth in the jet stream story, since Arctic sea ice didn’t shrink until after 2000, but no longer after 2011?

Sign displaying the name and address of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) located at Michelsonhaus A 31.

To make a long story short: Nothing at all! In our January article linked above, we also showed why this is so: At the height of the jet stream, the tropics warm up more than the Arctic with climate change. This should lead to a stronger jet stream, not a weaker one, as is often claimed. The PIK representative probably sticks to the “jet weakness fairy tale” against his better knowledge (he should know the current literature on the topic he is talking about!). The years of announcing this erroneous thesis are even reflected in Google AI summaries in searches. If you type in “jet stream change”, it jumps out at you:

“The jet stream is changing due to climate change: the warming of the Arctic (Arctic amplification) reduces the temperature difference with the equator, which tends to make the jet stream weaker …”

A very recent meta-study on the jet stream (published at the end of November 2025) explains the “summer jet stream changes”:

“In summer, Arctic amplification and Rossby wave propagation are both weaker and the stratospheric polar vortex is absent, making these less important among other previously mentioned drivers. … but the agreement across models on the polewards shift suggests that tropical upper-level warming is a major driver in that season.”

There is a very slight northward shift of the jet stream and it becomes somewhat stronger due to the tropical warming caused by climate change.

That is the state of science. However, especially around the jet stream and its development with climate change, there are also huge question marks, including the question of whether the models used are even able to say anything valid about it in our country:

… which raises concerns about the ability of models to capture the North Atlantic jet response to drivers. This discrepancy could have implications for how well models capture the magnitude of the jet response to greenhouse gas forcing…

Apparently, however, the steep and unscientific claims have been hammered into a collective memory with equally unscientific certainty so successfully that “artificial intelligence” has also adopted it. A reminder to focus more on “Human Intelligence” than on “Artificial”!

The question remains why the “jet stream fairy tale” was brought into the world. The answer is obvious: This means that pretty much any weather can be attributed to climate influences.
If it rains little: “Climate impact!”, it rains a lot: “Climate impact!”
Only attention is always the goal, hardly science.

The fairy tale is, so to speak, the Swiss Army knife for all would-be climate impact explainers.

As long as they are always able to place their stories offensively in the media, the widespread superstition will somehow live on. In truth, the climate impact explainers from Potsdam are probably interested in this, not primarily in responsible science, as it should be.

But then the “I” for “institute” in the name PIK would be an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.
But who can remember an acronym like “PKM” for “Potsdamer Klima Märchen” (Potsdam Climate Fairy Tale)?

Climate activists fail before European Court of Human Rights, Norway’s Arctic oil licensing passed legal muster

Norway scored a win Tuesday at Europe’s top human rights court after a group of young climate activists challenged its Arctic oil plans.

An oil drilling platform illuminated at night, set against a backdrop of the Northern Lights and snowy mountains.

Europe’s top rights court says Norway’s Arctic oil licensing passed legal muster, rejecting youth activists’ claims over future environmental harm.

By Eunseo Hong

Norway scored a win Tuesday at Europe’s top human rights court after a group of young climate activists challenged its Arctic oil plans.

The judges found that while the country’s licensing system wasn’t flawless, it still offered enough safeguards to protect human rights and the environment. The Courthouse News Service has the story.

The case was filed by six young Norwegians, backed by Greenpeace Nordic and Young Friends of the Earth, over the government’s 2016 decision to open new oil and gas exploration areas in the Barents Sea. They argued that by expanding fossil fuel development in the Arctic, Norway was putting their futures at risk and failing its duty to protect people from the worsening impacts of climate change.

For the young activists, most of them born in the 1990s, the lawsuit was an attempt to push Norway’s courts and eventually Europe’s to draw a clear line between climate policy and human rights. They said they had grown up seeing the effects of a warming world: shorter winters, melting glaciers and smoky summer skies. If Norway could keep approving new oil projects without fully weighing their climate impact, they argued, then future generations would bear the cost.

Reviewing Norway’s climate reviews

That question, how far a state’s duty to protect against climate harm should go, was at the heart of the case the European Court of Human Rights examined in Strasbourg. The judges ultimately took a different view, saying Norway’s approval system already had enough checks in place to prevent serious harm. 

Exploration and production happen in separate phases, and no drilling can begin until a full environmental review and public consultation are carried out later on. Any shortcomings in the early stages, the court said, could still be fixed at the final approval phase.

The court acknowledged that the 2016 review wasn’t perfect and skipped over some big questions, like the long-term climate impact and emissions from exported oil. Still, it found that Norway’s overall system met its human rights obligations. 

Norway requires its own environmental checks, public input and legal oversight at each step in the petroleum process — from opening new areas to licensing and finally to production — which the judges said were enough to keep the process on solid ground.

Because of those safeguards, the judges said any early gaps could be corrected later. They also pointed out that the exploration licenses didn’t let companies start pumping oil or guarantee that extraction would ever happen. The risks tied to those permits, they found, were too uncertain and too far in the future to amount to a human rights violation.

No immediate threat

Petra Minnerop, an international law professor at Durham Law School, said the court’s approach largely came down to trust in Norway’s pledge to carry out a full environmental review later on.

The judges emphasized the need for any review to rely on current, reliable data, and to consider the combined impact of all future projects together.

But Greenpeace Nordic says Norway falls short in practice. Legal campaigner Klimentina Radkova said the court’s assumption that full climate reviews take place at the final approval stage “is not done for any new oil and gas projects on the Norwegian continental shelf today,” adding that the group is challenging that gap in a separate case over three North Sea fields.

The court also drew a sharp line between this case and earlier climate rulings that dealt with governments allowing pollution that posed an immediate danger to people’s lives. In Norway’s case, no drilling had been approved, and no real environmental harm had occurred. Human rights protections, the judges explained, only apply when a government’s actions create a clear and immediate threat — and opening exploration areas didn’t cross that line.

The activists argued that Norway should have counted the climate impact of oil burned overseas, saying pollution doesn’t stop at the border. But the court wasn’t convinced. It found that those global effects were too uncertain and too far removed to factor in at the licensing stage. The judges added that international law still doesn’t offer clear rules for how to measure or assign responsibility for such emissions.

Read the full story here.

As far as the “climate” is concerned, the Court of Justice often makes politics instead of administering justice: For example, it upheld the complaint of two Swiss women who saw their “health” endangered by Switzerland’s “insufficient climate protection”.