Google, Salesforce, and a handful of other tech companies have announced an $80 million investment in carbon capture technologies, aiming to retrofit industrial facilities like paper mills and sewage plants. This move is framed as a forward-thinking solution to climate concerns, but given the complexities and uncertainties of the issue, it looks more like an expensive foray into the latest corporate trend than a meaningful response to any clearly defined problem.

What’s the Plan?

The funds are split between two projects:

• CREW: A startup focused on capturing CO₂ emissions at wastewater treatment facilities.
• CO₂80: A company retrofitting pulp and paper mills with carbon capture systems.

CO280 takes a different approach by adding carbon capture devices to facilities that burn “black liquor,” a bi-product from pulp manufacturing that’s used to generate heat and power. The devices are supposed to capture the CO2 from burning black liquor so that it can be permanently stored in underground wells. Since the fuel is made from trees, the process essentially sequesters CO2 that those trees drew in through photosynthesis during their lifetimes.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/12/23/24328158/paper-sewage-carbon-removal-google-salesforce-frontier-crew-co280?utm_source=chatgpt.com

The pitch is simple: trap carbon emissions at the source, theoretically reducing the environmental impact of these industrial processes. But these are industries that don’t even crack the top tier of global emitters, raising questions about why this is the focus. Is this really about environmental benefit—or is it just low-hanging PR fruit?

Carbon Capture: A Technology in Search of a Purpose

Carbon capture technologies are a favorite among policymakers and corporations because they give the appearance of action without requiring much sacrifice. But in practice, the approach is plagued by problems:

• High Costs, Questionable Returns: Retrofitting facilities is expensive, and the amount of CO₂ captured is often negligible compared to the costs.
• Energy-Intensive: Running these systems requires significant energy input, which can reduce or even negate the supposed environmental benefit.
• Narrow Focus: Targeting small industrial sectors like paper mills and wastewater plants won’t make a dent in global emissions.

Despite decades of development, carbon capture has yet to prove itself as a scalable or efficient way to address emissions—if that’s even the goal.

What’s Driving This?

For companies like Google and Salesforce, this investment isn’t about solving so-called climate problems; it’s about optics. Supporting cutting-edge green technology offers a way to polish their image and divert attention from their own contributions to energy consumption.

Google, for instance, runs massive data centers that guzzle electricity. While the company boasts about renewable energy purchases, those claims often rest on dubious accounting tricks like renewable energy certificates (RECs), which don’t guarantee actual reductions in emissions. Salesforce’s operations, meanwhile, depend on cloud computing infrastructure with similar energy demands.

Rather than focus on streamlining operations or truly reducing energy use, these companies find it easier—and more lucrative—to invest in a splashy technology that aligns with public expectations about climate action.

Climate Uncertainty: The Elephant in the Room

This entire effort assumes that reducing CO₂ emissions is both urgent and universally beneficial. But the science surrounding climate change remains riddled with uncertainties, from the accuracy of long-term models to the complex interplay of natural climate systems.

This focus on carbon capture is premature and likely impotent, given these unknowns. Even if reducing emissions were proven to yield significant benefits, there’s little evidence that capturing CO₂ at wastewater plants or paper mills would be an effective—or necessary—contribution to global efforts.

The Real Beneficiaries

As usual, the main winners here aren’t the environment or the general public. Startups like CREW and CO₂80 stand to gain substantial funding to develop technologies that might never deliver on their promises. Meanwhile, tech giants secure glowing headlines and a veneer of environmental responsibility.

Taxpayers and consumers, on the other hand, are likely to bear the costs, whether through subsidies for these projects or higher prices for goods and services.

A Fad, Not a Fix

At its core, the push for carbon capture feels more like a corporate trend than a genuine response to environmental concerns. By targeting small-scale emitters with expensive and inefficient technologies, this initiative sidesteps larger questions about whether such efforts are even needed.

As tech giants race to outdo each other in the climate virtue-signaling game, the public would do well to remember that these projects often serve corporate interests far more effectively than they serve the planet. Instead of looking for real solutions—or asking whether solutions are even necessary—this is just another example of companies chasing headlines and staying on-trend.

Related