- What is Carbon Capture?
- What is Carbon Avoidance?
- Comparison of Effectiveness Carbon Capture and Carbon Avoidance
- Environmental and Social Impacts
- Real Cases and Examples
- Challenges and the Future
Climate change has become the most pressing global challenge, characterized by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO₂), which are driving global warming and extreme climate disruptions. In an effort to curb warming, two main strategies have emerged: carbon capture , which captures and stores CO₂ after it is released into the atmosphere, and carbon avoidance , which emphasizes preventing upstream emissions through clean energy transitions and efficiency. While both aim to reduce carbon accumulation, their approaches, costs, and impacts differ significantly.
What is Carbon Capture?
Carbon capture encompasses a range of technologies that capture CO₂ from industrial emission sources or directly from the air. In post-combustion models , fossil fuel power plant exhaust gases are passed through a CO₂-absorbing chemical solution, then the remaining gas is cleaned and the purified CO₂ is transported to geological formations such as salt pans or old oil reservoirs for long-term storage. Meanwhile, direct air capture (DAC) separates CO₂ directly from the ambient air with special sorbents, although it currently faces challenges of high operating and energy costs.
What is Carbon Avoidance?
Carbon avoidance focuses on preventing emissions in the first place, including replacing coal- and gas-based power plants with renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydropower, as well as increasing efficiency in the transportation, building, and manufacturing sectors. Behavioral changes such as switching to public transportation, low-emission diets, and circular economy practices complement these technical efforts. Thus, avoidance seeks to achieve “zero emissions” by reducing fossil fuel use, while capture acts as a safety net for emissions that are difficult to avoid.
Read more:
Comparison of Effectiveness Carbon Capture and Carbon Avoidance
Carbon capture directly addresses existing emissions, particularly from heavy industries like cement, steel, and basic chemicals, which are difficult to transition to renewable energy. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS ) facilities can separate up to millions of tons of CO₂ annually, but current global capacity is still less than 0.1% of the mitigation requirement, far below the target of neutralizing remaining emissions.
Furthermore, the cost of CO₂ capture varies between $50 and $200 per ton, depending on the technology and scale, not including transportation and storage costs. In contrast, carbon avoidance reduces emissions upstream, with potential cost savings of between $20 and $60 per ton of CO₂ equivalent over increasingly competitive renewable technologies.
Research by Hochman and others in 2024 , explained that emission avoidance costs 17.4% less than carbon capture. The effects of emission avoidance are more pronounced in reducing pollution indicators and fossil fuel demand, but they require significant investments in new infrastructure and radical shifts in the energy sector and people’s lifestyles. Therefore, while avoidance is more effective in the long term and in terms of cost, capture remains vital for reducing emissions from sectors that are difficult to divert.
Environmental and Social Impacts
Carbon capture facilities create their own ecological footprint, such as the construction of CO₂ pipelines, additional energy consumption, and the risk of long-term leaks at storage sites. Some local communities may also face land conflicts and potential pollution if facilities are located near residential areas. On the other hand, the renewable energy transition, while having a carbon footprint from the construction of solar panels and wind turbines, produces minimal emissions throughout its lifecycle and is generally more widely accepted.
Read more:
Understanding the Carbon Footprint, Why It Matters for Our Future?
However, even wind farms or biomass power projects can trigger disputes over land, habitat, and environmental justice if participation and compensation for marginalized communities are inadequate. Economically, CCS ( Carbon Capture and Storage ) creates highly technical jobs that require specialized skills, while avoidance through clean energy development and efficiency supports new industrial ecosystems and retraining opportunities for fossil fuel workers. Therefore, inclusive and equitable policies are crucial to ensure that mitigation benefits reach all segments of society.
Real Cases and Examples
In Norway, the Northern Lights project represents Europe’s most ambitious implementation of CCS ( Carbon Capture and Storage ) . CO₂ from capture facilities in three countries is transported via pipeline and ship to a geological reservoir off the Norwegian coast. With a capacity of 1.5 million tonnes of CO₂ per year, the project marks a concrete step towards managing transboundary emissions.
Meanwhile, Petra Nova in Texas, once the largest CCS ( Carbon Capture and Storage ) facility in the US with a capacity of 1.6 million tons per year, was shut down in 2020 due to operating costs exceeding budget, highlighting the financial risks of large-scale projects. In the realm of avoidance , Germany through its Energiewende program has increased its renewable energy mix to more than 50% by 2023, reducing carbon emissions by more than 40% since 1990. In Denmark, the island of Samsø achieved 100% renewable energy independence in 2017, combining wind turbines, solar, and local biomass, serving as an example of how local communities can lead the green transition.
Challenges and the Future
In the next 5 to 10 years , the main challenges for carbon capture include increasing capture efficiency at low CO₂ concentrations (especially in DAC), reducing operational costs through sorbent material innovation and renewable energy integration, and ensuring secure, leak-free long-term storage. On the carbon avoidance side , the biggest obstacles are addressing infrastructure gaps in developing countries, designing effective economic incentives, and encouraging broad-scale societal behavioral change.
Climate policies that enforce realistic carbon pricing, transparent carbon credits, and public-private partnerships are needed to combine the strengths of both strategies. Potential synergies, such as operating direct air capture (DAC) facilities with renewable electricity or utilizing captured CO₂ as an industrial feedstock, can lower costs while adding economic value. Adaptive policy planning based on cutting-edge data will be key to balancing mitigation needs with social and economic sustainability.
Addressing the urgency of the climate crisis cannot rely on a single solution. Carbon capture and carbon avoidance each have their own advantages and limitations. One closes the emissions gap in carbon-intensive sectors, while the other cuts upstream emissions at a large scale and at a more competitive cost. Rather than choosing between them, an effective climate approach combines both, optimizing avoidance to prevent new emissions and using capture as a safeguard for unavoidable emissions.
IML Carbon is here to assist you with Verra-based carbon project document preparation, feasibility analysis, methodology selection, and credible, data-driven emissions calculations. With IML Carbon, net zero targets can be achieved faster, more effectively, and more equitably.
Author: Nadhif
Editor: Sabilla Reza
References:
Hochman, G., & Appasamy, V. (2024). The case for carbon capture and storage technologies. Environments, 11(3), Article 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments11030052