There is a lower space for storing carbon dioxide, climate change driver, which was previously thought

The world has much lower places to safely store carbon dioxide than under the ground, which was previously believed, which sharply reduces its potential to help stop global warming, according to a new study that challenges long -related claims about this practice.

the study , Published Wednesday in the magazine natureI found that the global carbon storage capacity was 10 times less than previous estimates after excluding geological formations where gas could leak, or lead to earthquakes or groundwater pollution, or had other restrictions. This means that capturing and storing carbon will only have the ability to reduce the warming that a person causes by 0.7 ° C (1.26 Fahrenheit)-less than previous estimates of about 5-6 ° C (9-10.8 ° F), researchers said.

“Carbon storage is often filmed as a way out of the climate crisis. The results we find shows that it is a limited tool” and stresses “the great importance in reducing emissions as soon as possible.” The study was led by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, as Gueen is also considered a major researcher in the energy, climate and environment program.

This study is the latest technology, for years promoted by the oil and gas industry, which has often described as a climate solution. Today, carbon capture is far from its widespread deployment, despite billions of dollars in investments all over the world, and the current amount of carbon captured is just a small part of billions of tons of carbon dioxide emitted every year.

Difficult assumptions

The Paris Agreement for the year 2015 called for reducing the average global temperature to 2 ° C (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), but ideally less than 1.5 ° C (2.7f), compared to the early nineteenth century.

Alexander Copperl, a researcher at the University of Lisbon, said that many scenarios to achieve this relied on carbon removal and storage, on the assumption that the capabilities were “very large” because previous estimates did not explain the weak areas that may not be appropriate.

“This has not been systematically challenged,” Copperl said, adding that the study was the first to examine the areas that should be avoided, which leads to what they call “wise capabilities” that reduce risks to people and the environment.

This does not mean that carbon capture and storage is not important to maintain global temperatures in the examination – but countries must give priority to how to use them for limited storage and do so in conjunction with rapid and deep emissions discounts, the researchers said.

Cooppers said that technology should be used perfectly for sectors that are difficult to remove carbon, such as cement production, aviation and agriculture, rather than prolonging the life of polluted power plants or to prolong the use of oil and gas.

Industry officials have defended carbon capture and storing it as a low risk of nature and say that emerging technologies, such as carbon dioxide storage in basalt formations where it becomes minerals, can significantly increase the total storage sizes.

What’s more, its use “is not optional if we hope to address global warming,” said Jesse Stolark, executive director of the carbon capture coalition, adding that it should be combined with other ways to reduce emissions and balance them with the need for reliable energy at reasonable prices.

Rob Jackson, President Carbon Global ProjectA group of scientists who monitor greenhouse gas emissions praised the study for its warning perspective. Although it is optimistic that the carbon capture technology itself will work, it is believed that only a little “because I do not think we are ready to pay for it.”

“If we are not ready to reduce emissions today, then why do we expect people in the future to automatically push our pollution?” Jackson said. “We only continue to pollution and not to address the root of the problem.”

How to work

Carbon dioxide, a gas that results from burning fossil fuels, dysfires the heat near the Earth when it is released to the atmosphere, where it lasts for hundreds of years and raises global temperatures.

Industries and power plants can install the equipment to separate carbon dioxide from other gases before Smokestack leaves, or can be captured directly from the atmosphere using giant voids.

The broken carbon is pressed and charged to a underground location underground for long-term storage in salty or deep basalt configurations and incomplete coal layers-although about three quarters are pumped again in the oil fields to build pressure to help extract more oil.

In the United States, these projects have faced criticism from some conservatives, who say they are expensive and unnecessary, and from environmental protection advocates, who say they have constantly failed to capture a lot of pollution as they promised, and it is just a way for fossil fuel producers such as oil, gas and coal to continue their use.

The most used technology allows facilities to capture and store about 60 % of carbon dioxide emissions during the production process. Anything higher than this rate is more difficult and expensive, according to the International Energy Agency.

Gideen, the main author, said it is clear that the expansion of carbon storage will be important to achieve clear clear emissions and to reduce them in the end, and said that the use of basalt formations is promising. But the world cannot wait until this happens decisively before acting to reduce fossil fuel emissions.

He said: “If we prolong our dependence on fossil fuels for a long time, with expectation that we compensate that by storing carbon underground, it is possible that we will anger future generations with an impossible task that is only dealing with our chaos, but are limited ways to clean them.”

© 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved. These materials may not be published, broadcast, rewriting or redistributed without permission.