Google, Salesforce and several other technology companies have announced an $80 million investment in carbon capture technology aimed at retrofitting industrial facilities such as paper mills and wastewater treatment plants. The move was pitched as a forward-thinking solution to the climate problem, but given the complexity and uncertainty of the problem, it looks more like a costly foray into the latest corporate trend than an answer to any clearly defined problem. Meaningful response.
What's the plan?
Funds are allocated to two projects:
- All personnel: A startup focused on capturing carbon dioxide emissions from wastewater treatment facilities.
- Carbon dioxide 80: A company retrofitting pulp and paper mills with carbon capture systems.
CO280 takes a different approach, adding carbon capture to facilities that burn “black liquor,” a byproduct of pulp manufacturing, which is used to generate heat and electricity. The devices are supposed to capture carbon dioxide from burning black liquor so it can be permanently stored in underground wells. Since the fuel is made from trees, the process essentially sequesters the carbon dioxide those trees absorb through photosynthesis during their lifetime.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/12/23/24328158/paper-sewage-carbon-removal-google-salesforce-frontier-crew-co280?utm_source=chatgpt.com
The proposition is simple: Capture carbon emissions at their source, theoretically reducing the environmental impact of these industrial processes. But these industries don't even rank among the world's top emitters, raising questions about why this is the focus. Is this really an environmental benefit?
Carbon capture: a technology in search of purpose
Carbon capture technologies are favored by policymakers and businesses because they appear to take action without requiring too many sacrifices. But in practice, there are problems with this approach:
- High costs, doubtful returns: Retrofitting facilities is very expensive, and the amount of CO2 captured is usually negligible compared to the cost.
- energy intensive: Running these systems requires significant energy inputs, which may reduce or even negate purported environmental benefits.
- narrow focus: Targeting small industrial sectors such as paper mills and wastewater treatment plants will not reduce global emissions.
Despite decades of development, carbon capture has yet to prove itself as a scalable or effective solution to the emissions problem—if that’s even the goal.
What's driving this?
For companies like Google and Salesforce, this investment isn't about solving so-called climate problems; It's about optics. Supporting cutting-edge green technologies offers a way to enhance one's image and divert attention from their contribution to energy consumption.
For example, Google operates data centers that consume a lot of power. While the company brags about purchasing renewable energy, these claims are often based on dubious accounting tricks such as renewable energy certificates (RECs), which do not guarantee actual emissions reductions. At the same time, Salesforce's operations rely on cloud computing infrastructure with similar energy needs.
Rather than focusing on streamlining operations or actually reducing energy use, these companies have found it easier and more profitable to invest in compelling technologies that align with public expectations for climate action.
Climate uncertainty: The elephant in the room
This entire effort is premised on the idea that reducing CO2 emissions is both urgent and universally beneficial. But the science surrounding climate change remains rife with uncertainty, from the accuracy of long-term models to the complex interactions of the natural climate system.
Given these unknowns, a focus on carbon capture is premature and likely to be ineffective. Even if it turns out that reducing emissions can produce significant benefits, there is little evidence that capturing CO2 at wastewater treatment plants or paper mills would make an effective or necessary contribution to the global effort.
real beneficiary
As usual, the main winner here isn't the environment or the public. Startups like CREW and CO280 will receive significant funding to develop technologies that may never live up to their promises. Meanwhile, tech giants dominate the headlines and take on the mantle of environmental responsibility.
On the other hand, taxpayers and consumers may bear the cost, whether through subsidies for these programs or increased prices for goods and services.
A fad, not a solution
In essence, the push for carbon capture is more of a corporate trend than a true response to environmental concerns. By using expensive and inefficient technology to target small-scale emitters, the initiative begs larger questions about whether such an effort is needed.
As tech giants race to outdo each other in the climate virtue signaling game, the public would do well to remember that these projects often serve corporate interests far more than they serve the planet. Rather than looking for real solutions, or asking if a solution is necessary, this is another example of companies chasing headlines and keeping up with trends.
Relevant
Learn more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to have the latest posts delivered to your email.
