Why Pay More? Switching to Renewables Is Cheaper Than Carbon Capture!

As fossil fuel consumption continues, greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide and methane keep rising, worsening the climate crisis. While carbon capture technology promises to remove excess CO₂ from the atmosphere, new research highlights its severe limitations and economic drawbacks.

Carbon capture is still in its early stages, and many claims about its effectiveness are overhyped. A recent study compared the costs of investing in carbon capture versus transitioning to renewable energy, and the results are clear—switching to wind, solar, and water power is the better option.

“If you spend $1 on carbon capture instead of on wind, water, and solar, you are increasing CO₂, air pollution, energy costs, and overall social costs,” explains lead researcher Professor Mark Jacobson from Stanford University.

The study contrasts two possible futures: one where fossil fuels are phased out in favor of renewable energy, electrification, and sustainable transport, and another where fossil fuel use continues with added carbon capture. The first scenario proves far more effective at reducing emissions and costs.

Moving to renewables by 2050 could cut energy demand by 54%, with even greater financial savings. Additionally, millions of illnesses and around 5 million deaths from air pollution could be prevented annually. Unlike fossil fuels, renewables generate power on-site, eliminating the need for extraction, transport, and refining.

The study’s conclusion is clear: the only way to fully eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions is to phase out fossil fuels entirely.