Fifty years after the advent of commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS), the technology remains an underwhelming solution to global emissions reduction. Despite the initial hope that CCS would become a pillar of climate mitigation, its global deployment accounts for a mere 0.09 percent of worldwide emissions. This disheartening statistic highlights the immense gap between the theoretical promise and practical implementation of CCS technologies. Even scenarios that envision a tenfold acceleration in installation rates reveal that CCS’s contribution will remain marginal through to 2050. This sobering reality necessitates an urgent reevaluation of current climate strategies, motivating a shift away from reliance on carbon capture as a primary tool for achieving net-zero emissions.
Compounding the challenge, the constrained rate of expansion of emission-free electricity generation further restricts the potential to produce clean hydrogen and negative-emission technologies at scale before mid-century. The global electricity system faces severe limitations that hinder adequate scaling of these green energy sources, which are fundamental to many proposed climate pathways. Hydrogen, often touted as a linchpin for decarbonizing hard-to-electrify sectors, particularly industrial processes, cannot reach the volumes required under these constraints. Similarly, negative-emission solutions—critical for offsetting residual emissions—fail to materialize in meaningful capacities. These energy constraints expose a stark reality: climate policy must pivot towards strategies grounded in more immediate and achievable actions.
A critical recalibration of our approach necessitates a focus on decarbonizing bulk material production through the exclusive use of emission-free electricity, all within a rigorously constrained global electricity budget. Industrial sectors such as steel and paper production, which traditionally rely on fossil fuels and chemically intensive processes, are prime candidates for electrification. Studies demonstrate that primary steel and paper manufacturing can be fully electrified, drastically reducing process emissions. However, steel production presents unique complexities; while electrification is technically feasible, the specific electrical intensity—and by extension, the hydrogen demand—places limitations on adopting green hydrogen at scale. This implies that while direct electric routes are promising, hydrogen’s future role in steelmaking is quantitatively constrained by energy availability.
Beyond primary production, the recycling of vital materials emerges as a transformative avenue for emissions abatement. Steel, aluminum, glass, plastics, and potentially cement represent a category of bulk materials that can be recycled with minimal emissions and high energetic efficiency. Recycling not only reduces the demand for virgin raw materials but also substantially lowers the cumulative energy input required, which is critical in an era of constrained electricity supplies. The high efficiency of recycling processes means less environmental impact per unit of material produced, aligning neatly with the strategic imperative to minimize emissions. The widespread deployment and improvement of recycling systems could thus deliver outsized environmental benefits relative to investments in other decarbonization methods.
This paradigm shift invites a profound reorientation of research priorities within academic and industrial communities. Instead of channeling resources predominantly into developing nascent CCS or hydrogen infrastructures, efforts should intensify around enhancing the quality of recycled outputs and devising methods that make better use of materials. Research on improving the mechanical, chemical, and structural properties of recycled steel or plastics could significantly broaden the applicability of recycled feedstocks. Similarly, innovations in material design—enabling greater durability, recyclability, and reduced material intensity—would yield substantial climate dividends. This approach fosters a circular economy, where materials recirculate with minimal degradation, thereby significantly reducing emissions embedded in production cycles.
The urgency of this transition reflects a sobering truth: decades of global CCS deployment have fallen drastically short of their anticipated impact, while hydrogen and other clean technologies remain tethered by practical constraints. The climate community is therefore compelled to confront uncomfortable realities about feasibility and scale. Policy frameworks must pivot accordingly, emphasizing initiatives that harness the available clean electricity more efficiently and pragmatically. This realignment does not signal abandoning technological innovation in CCS or hydrogen but rather recalibrating expectations and prioritizing realistic, high-impact interventions for the near and medium term.
Furthermore, the energy-intensive nature of producing bulk materials demands conservative use of the limited clean electricity available. Governments and industries alike must embrace stringent efficiency standards and consider systemic reforms in production and consumption patterns. Emphasis on lean production methods, material substitution, and waste reduction could further optimize resource use. For instance, shifting steel and cement demand towards products designed for longer lifespan and easier recycling can reduce cumulative energy demand over decades. Such systemic adjustments synergize with electrification and recycling to maximize emission reductions within the available energy pool.
This holistic view also highlights the importance of demand-side solutions in achieving climate goals. Reducing the overall material throughput without sacrificing societal benefit represents a formidable yet necessary challenge. Policies fostering repair, refurbishment, and sharing over new production can alleviate pressure on energy and raw material inputs. Similarly, consumer behavior shifts towards products with lower embodied emissions create market signals that incentivize sustainable production. In sum, managing demand is not ancillary but central to meeting climate mitigation commitments in this constrained future.
One cannot overlook the implications for industrial policy and investment. Governments should redirect funding from marginally impactful large-scale CCS projects towards scaling electrification of key sectors and upgrading recycling infrastructure. Public-private partnerships focused on technology transfer, workforce training, and innovation in circular economy business models could accelerate this transition. Moreover, international collaboration is essential given the globalized nature of supply chains and material flows. Joint efforts can reduce duplication, optimize resource allocation, and ensure equitable distribution of clean technologies and recycling capabilities worldwide.
Educational institutions and research organizations play a vital role in reshaping the discourse around decarbonization. By candidly addressing the limitations of CCS and hydrogen within curricula and public communications, academia can provide policymakers and the public with a grounded understanding of realistic options. Interdisciplinary research that integrates engineering, economics, and behavioral sciences will be critical to developing and implementing effective solutions. Such comprehensive scholarship empowers decision-makers to craft policies that are both visionary and practically achievable.
It is worth noting that some technological advances—such as breakthrough electrolyzers for green hydrogen or emerging carbon utilization pathways—could alter the landscape over longer timeframes. However, current projections based on realistic scaling assumptions underscore the urgency in adopting immediate, high-impact strategies that are budgeted within constrained energy capacities. Waiting for uncertain future breakthroughs risks overshooting climate targets and missing critical windows for intervention.
In conclusion, the collective evidence is compelling: carbon capture and storage and green hydrogen, while promising on paper, will not contribute meaningfully to decarbonization by 2050 under current and optimistic deployment trajectories. The realistic pathway lies in aggressive electrification of industrial processes powered by renewable electricity within a constrained energy system, accompanied by massive improvements in recycling and material efficiency. This approach prioritizes feasible solutions grounded in existing technological capabilities and infrastructure, providing a pragmatic blueprint for policymakers navigating the complex terrain of climate action. The spotlight is now on durable, system-wide transformations that reconcile industrial growth with planetary boundaries.
The strategic pivot toward circularity and electrification demands broad stakeholder engagement and systemic overhaul of conventions that have long shaped industrial production. As the clock ticks relentlessly toward 2050 targets, the imperative grows clearer: climate progress depends not on elusive technological fixes but on tangible, achievable actions that maximize the efficacy of each kilowatt-hour of clean electricity and each kilogram of reused material. Holistic, integrated approaches offer the most promising avenue to secure a sustainable industrial future compatible with global climate goals.
Subject of Research: The feasibility and impact of carbon capture and storage and hydrogen in climate mitigation, with a focus on electrification and recycling in bulk material production.
Article Title: Too late for CCS and hydrogen.
Article References:
Allwood, J.M. Too late for CCS and hydrogen. Nat Chem Eng (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44286-025-00344-1
Image Credits: AI Generated
