There is a drastic difference between permanently storing captured carbon dioxide underground and using it in the production of things such as synthetic methane and chemical, which “merely delays the CO2 from being emitted,” the European environmental organization Bellona said Wednesday in a policy brief. “While there are methods of permanently storing CO2 by using CCU technologies, such as mineralisation, the usage of captured CO2 in chemicals and fuels does not contribute to significantly lowering the level of CO2 in the atmosphere,” the brief says.
Carbon utilization is not necessarily a bad thing, the paper says, but it is a mistake to put it on the same level as CCS. “The development of a CCU infrastructure should serve as a stepping stone towards the deployment of CCS,” the report says.
Because many CCU practices lead to the CO2 eventually being emitted, these measures should not be acceptable in the European Emissions Trading System (ETS), according to Bellona. “Including non-permanent CCU in the system could not only incentivise industries to produce more CO2, as this would become a commodity, but it could also allow the CO2 to be emitted without being accounted for by the ETS,” the paper says.