Supporters including Tony Blair say that we can’t decarbonise without carbon capture. Others argue that it’s a deliberate smokescreen for the fossil fuel industry to continue business as usual, writes Jennifer Richardson Carbon capture and storage (CCS) may sound simple and promising enough. It involves the capture of carbon dioxide (CO2) at its source—such as an industrial plant—before it can enter the atmosphere, storing it deep underground in geological formations such as oil wells. Supporters argue that CCS is essential for reaching net zero, alongside reducing emissions, because of globally rising energy demands and the difficulties of fully decarbonising some industries. The former UK prime minister Tony Blair is one strong advocate: an April 2025 report from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change said that CCS should be “at the centre of the battle” to reduce carbon emissions.12 Critics, however, point to problems with the technology, not least that it has yet to be proved at scale. It is also, they say, energy intensive, expensive, and inefficient, while failing to tackle pollutants other than carbon and their impact on health (box). Worse, they claim that it serves as a distraction from other, more impactful, solutions to the climate crisis—as well as a deliberate and industry sponsored smokescreen for the continued, and even expanded, extraction and burning of fossil fuels. “The bottom line is that carbon capture just increases CO2,” says Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, California. “It increases air pollution. It increases fossil fuel mining, fossil fuel infrastructure, pipelines, and it results in more oil being drilled. In the end, all it does is keep the fossil fuel industry in business . . . so it’s basically a scam.” There are three major reasons why carbon capture is …