This carbon policy has been a spectacular failure. Let's put this zombie in the ground for good
The Advertiser2 days ago
Like a reanimated corpse from The Walking Dead, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the boondoggle "technology" that just wont die. As a way for governments to piss public money up the wall, CCS is incredibly effective. On almost every other front, its a spectacular failure.
But apparently, Australia is set to be the "sequestration nation". Huzzah!
In a perpetual triumph of hope of experience, Resources Minister Madeline King launched a new report on the "economic potential" of CCS this week from Low Emission Technology Australia. A fully networked CCS industry along the east coast could increase economic activity by tens of billions of dollars, according to the best-case scenario outlined in the report summary.
The rhetoric is polished; the facts are not.
Commercial-scale carbon capture and storage is like teleportation, a nice idea, but a total fantasy. Its perpetually 10 years away from fruition. Lets begin with Australias track record. I am old enough to remember when the coal industry promised commercial-scale CCS would be "bolted on" to our coal-fired power station fleet by 2015 at the latest. What a joke.
Australias biggest CCS project is Chevrons Gorgon facility off the WA coast. Derived from the Greek word Gorgos, meaning fierce, terrible and grim, Gorgon is aptly named.
It was supposed to capture up to 4 million tonnes of CO2 per year. It has never come close.
Its running at about one-third of its capacity and has missed every major milestone. Has any government demanded a refund? Cancelled their permits to operate, granted on the promise 80 per cent of its pollution would be buried? Of course not.
Chevron continues to pollute and profit, while CCS somehow still gets spun as a climate solution.
Then theres ZeroGena $4.3 billion flagship clean coal project that failed spectacularly, sequestered no carbon, and cost taxpayers more than $100 million. Gorgon and ZeroGen are not the exception. They are the rule. CCS is an abject failure by any measure.
Despite this, CCS is being resurrected once again - not because it works, but because it serves a purpose. It gives the fossil fuel industry the social licence to expand.
Take the Middle Arm project in Darwin. Sold as sustainable development, its actually a petrochemical hub, reliant on fracking the Beetaloo Basin, greenwashed with the promise of burying its emissions.
Or consider Santos Barossa gas project, one of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel projects in Australias history and one of the dirtiest gas project in Australia.
Governments arent just enabling this - theyre fast-tracking it. While essential environmental protections sit idle, the Albanese government prioritised legislation designed to help Santos bury its carbon abroad.
Special special ''sea dumping" legislation allows it to offset pollution by piping it to Timor-Leste for burial. Once again, the public interest is playing second fiddle to fossil fuel profits.
This is not a climate policy. Its a fossil fuel expansion plan with a CCS bow on top.
The International Energy Agency and IPCC do mention CCS in some scenarios. But what they project is not a green light for governments to bet the house on unicorn technology.
Rather, its a sober warning that if everything else fails - renewables, electrification, behaviour change - we might need some CCS. The path to net zero should not be built on desperation fallbacks and marketing strategies.
And yet, here we are in 2025, still throwing public money and favourable legislation at a technology that has captured more political spin than carbon dioxide.
Whats more, if CCS is so commercially viable, why does it always need billions in subsidies, bespoke legislation, and regulatory carve-outs to survive?
Why does the fossil fuel industry only pursue it when it allows them to produce more fossil fuels?
While we never seem to have enough money for things people need, like keeping the unemployed above the poverty line, or funding frontline domestic violence services, yet public funding for CCS seems to draw from the same bottomless bucket of money new submarines are funded from.
The harsh truth is this: every dollar spent on CCS is a dollar not spent on proven climate solutions or on literally any other services or infrastructure we need. And we need to ask: if CCS was going to work, wouldnt it have done so by now?
MORE EBONY BENNETT:
Carbon capture and storage a proven failure economically and environmentally is still touted as some miracle solution.
But what about what we know does work, and is available now? Are we at least investing in real solutions?
Nope. Trees are still the cheapest most natural way to sequester carbon, yet native forest logging is still perfectly legal in some states.
The NSW government has seen land-clearing jump by 40 per cent according to latest reports, and its long-promised Great Koala National Park is being logged instead of protected.
So, we can all stop pretending governments are actually interested in sequestering carbon.
The next decade is critical for climate action. We cant afford to waste it funding PR campaigns dressed up as policy.
We already know the best and simplest way to reduce emissions is to stop approving massive expansion of Australias gas and coal industry, most of which is exported overseas.
Australias fossil fuel exports are a huge source of pollution. But theyre also driving up the cost of living.
Australia Institute research shows the massive expansion of gas exports on the east coast has tripled wholesale gas prices and doubled electricity prices. Stopping Australias massive gas and coal exports makes sense economically and environmentally. And theres no special legislation required.
Australia doesnt need more magical thinking. We need policy integrity, political courage and practical solutions. End native forest logging. Stop approving new gas and coal projects. The government could do that starting today.
Carbon capture and storage has had its chance and blew it. Twenty years, a billion dollars, and Australia has nothing to show for it. If the fossil fuel industry wants to waste more money on CCS, fine. But not a single cent more of public money need be wasted on this fantasy.
Like a reanimated corpse from The Walking Dead, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the boondoggle "technology" that just wont die. As a way for governments to piss public money up the wall, CCS is incredibly effective. On almost every other front, its a spectacular failure.
But apparently, Australia is set to be the "sequestration nation". Huzzah!
In a perpetual triumph of hope of experience, Resources Minister Madeline King launched a new report on the "economic potential" of CCS this week from Low Emission Technology Australia. A fully networked CCS industry along the east coast could increase economic activity by tens of billions of dollars, according to the best-case scenario outlined in the report summary.
The rhetoric is polished; the facts are not.
Commercial-scale carbon capture and storage is like teleportation, a nice idea, but a total fantasy. Its perpetually 10 years away from fruition. Lets begin with Australias track record. I am old enough to remember when the coal industry promised commercial-scale CCS would be "bolted on" to our coal-fired power station fleet by 2015 at the latest. What a joke.
Australias biggest CCS project is Chevrons Gorgon facility off the WA coast. Derived from the Greek word Gorgos, meaning fierce, terrible and grim, Gorgon is aptly named.
It was supposed to capture up to 4 million tonnes of CO2 per year. It has never come close.
Its running at about one-third of its capacity and has missed every major milestone. Has any government demanded a refund? Cancelled their permits to operate, granted on the promise 80 per cent of its pollution would be buried? Of course not.
Chevron continues to pollute and profit, while CCS somehow still gets spun as a climate solution.
Then theres ZeroGena $4.3 billion flagship clean coal project that failed spectacularly, sequestered no carbon, and cost taxpayers more than $100 million. Gorgon and ZeroGen are not the exception. They are the rule. CCS is an abject failure by any measure.
Despite this, CCS is being resurrected once again - not because it works, but because it serves a purpose. It gives the fossil fuel industry the social licence to expand.
Take the Middle Arm project in Darwin. Sold as sustainable development, its actually a petrochemical hub, reliant on fracking the Beetaloo Basin, greenwashed with the promise of burying its emissions.
Or consider Santos Barossa gas project, one of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel projects in Australias history and one of the dirtiest gas project in Australia.
Governments arent just enabling this - theyre fast-tracking it. While essential environmental protections sit idle, the Albanese government prioritised legislation designed to help Santos bury its carbon abroad.
Special special ''sea dumping" legislation allows it to offset pollution by piping it to Timor-Leste for burial. Once again, the public interest is playing second fiddle to fossil fuel profits.
This is not a climate policy. Its a fossil fuel expansion plan with a CCS bow on top.
The International Energy Agency and IPCC do mention CCS in some scenarios. But what they project is not a green light for governments to bet the house on unicorn technology.
Rather, its a sober warning that if everything else fails - renewables, electrification, behaviour change - we might need some CCS. The path to net zero should not be built on desperation fallbacks and marketing strategies.
And yet, here we are in 2025, still throwing public money and favourable legislation at a technology that has captured more political spin than carbon dioxide.
Whats more, if CCS is so commercially viable, why does it always need billions in subsidies, bespoke legislation, and regulatory carve-outs to survive?
Why does the fossil fuel industry only pursue it when it allows them to produce more fossil fuels?
While we never seem to have enough money for things people need, like keeping the unemployed above the poverty line, or funding frontline domestic violence services, yet public funding for CCS seems to draw from the same bottomless bucket of money new submarines are funded from.
The harsh truth is this: every dollar spent on CCS is a dollar not spent on proven climate solutions or on literally any other services or infrastructure we need. And we need to ask: if CCS was going to work, wouldnt it have done so by now?
MORE EBONY BENNETT:
Carbon capture and storage a proven failure economically and environmentally is still touted as some miracle solution.
But what about what we know does work, and is available now? Are we at least investing in real solutions?
Nope. Trees are still the cheapest most natural way to sequester carbon, yet native forest logging is still perfectly legal in some states.
The NSW government has seen land-clearing jump by 40 per cent according to latest reports, and its long-promised Great Koala National Park is being logged instead of protected.
So, we can all stop pretending governments are actually interested in sequestering carbon.
The next decade is critical for climate action. We cant afford to waste it funding PR campaigns dressed up as policy.
We already know the best and simplest way to reduce emissions is to stop approving massive expansion of Australias gas and coal industry, most of which is exported overseas.
Australias fossil fuel exports are a huge source of pollution. But theyre also driving up the cost of living.
Australia Institute research shows the massive expansion of gas exports on the east coast has tripled wholesale gas prices and doubled electricity prices. Stopping Australias massive gas and coal exports makes sense economically and environmentally. And theres no special legislation required.
Australia doesnt need more magical thinking. We need policy integrity, political courage and practical solutions. End native forest logging. Stop approving new gas and coal projects. The government could do that starting today.
Carbon capture and storage has had its chance and blew it. Twenty years, a billion dollars, and Australia has nothing to show for it. If the fossil fuel industry wants to waste more money on CCS, fine. But not a single cent more of public money need be wasted on this fantasy.
Like a reanimated corpse from The Walking Dead, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the boondoggle "technology" that just wont die. As a way for governments to piss public money up the wall, CCS is incredibly effective. On almost every other front, its a spectacular failure.
But apparently, Australia is set to be the "sequestration nation". Huzzah!
In a perpetual triumph of hope of experience, Resources Minister Madeline King launched a new report on the "economic potential" of CCS this week from Low Emission Technology Australia. A fully networked CCS industry along the east coast could increase economic activity by tens of billions of dollars, according to the best-case scenario outlined in the report summary.
The rhetoric is polished; the facts are not.
Commercial-scale carbon capture and storage is like teleportation, a nice idea, but a total fantasy. Its perpetually 10 years away from fruition. Lets begin with Australias track record. I am old enough to remember when the coal industry promised commercial-scale CCS would be "bolted on" to our coal-fired power station fleet by 2015 at the latest. What a joke.
Australias biggest CCS project is Chevrons Gorgon facility off the WA coast. Derived from the Greek word Gorgos, meaning fierce, terrible and grim, Gorgon is aptly named.
It was supposed to capture up to 4 million tonnes of CO2 per year. It has never come close.
Its running at about one-third of its capacity and has missed every major milestone. Has any government demanded a refund? Cancelled their permits to operate, granted on the promise 80 per cent of its pollution would be buried? Of course not.
Chevron continues to pollute and profit, while CCS somehow still gets spun as a climate solution.
Then theres ZeroGena $4.3 billion flagship clean coal project that failed spectacularly, sequestered no carbon, and cost taxpayers more than $100 million. Gorgon and ZeroGen are not the exception. They are the rule. CCS is an abject failure by any measure.
Despite this, CCS is being resurrected once again - not because it works, but because it serves a purpose. It gives the fossil fuel industry the social licence to expand.
Take the Middle Arm project in Darwin. Sold as sustainable development, its actually a petrochemical hub, reliant on fracking the Beetaloo Basin, greenwashed with the promise of burying its emissions.
Or consider Santos Barossa gas project, one of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel projects in Australias history and one of the dirtiest gas project in Australia.
Governments arent just enabling this - theyre fast-tracking it. While essential environmental protections sit idle, the Albanese government prioritised legislation designed to help Santos bury its carbon abroad.
Special special ''sea dumping" legislation allows it to offset pollution by piping it to Timor-Leste for burial. Once again, the public interest is playing second fiddle to fossil fuel profits.
This is not a climate policy. Its a fossil fuel expansion plan with a CCS bow on top.
The International Energy Agency and IPCC do mention CCS in some scenarios. But what they project is not a green light for governments to bet the house on unicorn technology.
Rather, its a sober warning that if everything else fails - renewables, electrification, behaviour change - we might need some CCS. The path to net zero should not be built on desperation fallbacks and marketing strategies.
And yet, here we are in 2025, still throwing public money and favourable legislation at a technology that has captured more political spin than carbon dioxide.
Whats more, if CCS is so commercially viable, why does it always need billions in subsidies, bespoke legislation, and regulatory carve-outs to survive?
Why does the fossil fuel industry only pursue it when it allows them to produce more fossil fuels?
While we never seem to have enough money for things people need, like keeping the unemployed above the poverty line, or funding frontline domestic violence services, yet public funding for CCS seems to draw from the same bottomless bucket of money new submarines are funded from.
The harsh truth is this: every dollar spent on CCS is a dollar not spent on proven climate solutions or on literally any other services or infrastructure we need. And we need to ask: if CCS was going to work, wouldnt it have done so by now?
MORE EBONY BENNETT:
Carbon capture and storage a proven failure economically and environmentally is still touted as some miracle solution.
But what about what we know does work, and is available now? Are we at least investing in real solutions?
Nope. Trees are still the cheapest most natural way to sequester carbon, yet native forest logging is still perfectly legal in some states.
The NSW government has seen land-clearing jump by 40 per cent according to latest reports, and its long-promised Great Koala National Park is being logged instead of protected.
So, we can all stop pretending governments are actually interested in sequestering carbon.
The next decade is critical for climate action. We cant afford to waste it funding PR campaigns dressed up as policy.
We already know the best and simplest way to reduce emissions is to stop approving massive expansion of Australias gas and coal industry, most of which is exported overseas.
Australias fossil fuel exports are a huge source of pollution. But theyre also driving up the cost of living.
Australia Institute research shows the massive expansion of gas exports on the east coast has tripled wholesale gas prices and doubled electricity prices. Stopping Australias massive gas and coal exports makes sense economically and environmentally. And theres no special legislation required.
Australia doesnt need more magical thinking. We need policy integrity, political courage and practical solutions. End native forest logging. Stop approving new gas and coal projects. The government could do that starting today.
Carbon capture and storage has had its chance and blew it. Twenty years, a billion dollars, and Australia has nothing to show for it. If the fossil fuel industry wants to waste more money on CCS, fine. But not a single cent more of public money need be wasted on this fantasy.
Like a reanimated corpse from The Walking Dead, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the boondoggle "technology" that just wont die. As a way for governments to piss public money up the wall, CCS is incredibly effective. On almost every other front, its a spectacular failure.
But apparently, Australia is set to be the "sequestration nation". Huzzah!
In a perpetual triumph of hope of experience, Resources Minister Madeline King launched a new report on the "economic potential" of CCS this week from Low Emission Technology Australia. A fully networked CCS industry along the east coast could increase economic activity by tens of billions of dollars, according to the best-case scenario outlined in the report summary.
The rhetoric is polished; the facts are not.
Commercial-scale carbon capture and storage is like teleportation, a nice idea, but a total fantasy. Its perpetually 10 years away from fruition. Lets begin with Australias track record. I am old enough to remember when the coal industry promised commercial-scale CCS would be "bolted on" to our coal-fired power station fleet by 2015 at the latest. What a joke.
Australias biggest CCS project is Chevrons Gorgon facility off the WA coast. Derived from the Greek word Gorgos, meaning fierce, terrible and grim, Gorgon is aptly named.
It was supposed to capture up to 4 million tonnes of CO2 per year. It has never come close.
Its running at about one-third of its capacity and has missed every major milestone. Has any government demanded a refund? Cancelled their permits to operate, granted on the promise 80 per cent of its pollution would be buried? Of course not.
Chevron continues to pollute and profit, while CCS somehow still gets spun as a climate solution.
Then theres ZeroGena $4.3 billion flagship clean coal project that failed spectacularly, sequestered no carbon, and cost taxpayers more than $100 million. Gorgon and ZeroGen are not the exception. They are the rule. CCS is an abject failure by any measure.
Despite this, CCS is being resurrected once again - not because it works, but because it serves a purpose. It gives the fossil fuel industry the social licence to expand.
Take the Middle Arm project in Darwin. Sold as sustainable development, its actually a petrochemical hub, reliant on fracking the Beetaloo Basin, greenwashed with the promise of burying its emissions.
Or consider Santos Barossa gas project, one of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel projects in Australias history and one of the dirtiest gas project in Australia.
Governments arent just enabling this - theyre fast-tracking it. While essential environmental protections sit idle, the Albanese government prioritised legislation designed to help Santos bury its carbon abroad.
Special special ''sea dumping" legislation allows it to offset pollution by piping it to Timor-Leste for burial. Once again, the public interest is playing second fiddle to fossil fuel profits.
This is not a climate policy. Its a fossil fuel expansion plan with a CCS bow on top.
The International Energy Agency and IPCC do mention CCS in some scenarios. But what they project is not a green light for governments to bet the house on unicorn technology.
Rather, its a sober warning that if everything else fails - renewables, electrification, behaviour change - we might need some CCS. The path to net zero should not be built on desperation fallbacks and marketing strategies.
And yet, here we are in 2025, still throwing public money and favourable legislation at a technology that has captured more political spin than carbon dioxide.
Whats more, if CCS is so commercially viable, why does it always need billions in subsidies, bespoke legislation, and regulatory carve-outs to survive?
Why does the fossil fuel industry only pursue it when it allows them to produce more fossil fuels?
While we never seem to have enough money for things people need, like keeping the unemployed above the poverty line, or funding frontline domestic violence services, yet public funding for CCS seems to draw from the same bottomless bucket of money new submarines are funded from.
The harsh truth is this: every dollar spent on CCS is a dollar not spent on proven climate solutions or on literally any other services or infrastructure we need. And we need to ask: if CCS was going to work, wouldnt it have done so by now?
MORE EBONY BENNETT:
Carbon capture and storage a proven failure economically and environmentally is still touted as some miracle solution.
But what about what we know does work, and is available now? Are we at least investing in real solutions?
Nope. Trees are still the cheapest most natural way to sequester carbon, yet native forest logging is still perfectly legal in some states.
The NSW government has seen land-clearing jump by 40 per cent according to latest reports, and its long-promised Great Koala National Park is being logged instead of protected.
So, we can all stop pretending governments are actually interested in sequestering carbon.
The next decade is critical for climate action. We cant afford to waste it funding PR campaigns dressed up as policy.
We already know the best and simplest way to reduce emissions is to stop approving massive expansion of Australias gas and coal industry, most of which is exported overseas.
Australias fossil fuel exports are a huge source of pollution. But theyre also driving up the cost of living.
Australia Institute research shows the massive expansion of gas exports on the east coast has tripled wholesale gas prices and doubled electricity prices. Stopping Australias massive gas and coal exports makes sense economically and environmentally. And theres no special legislation required.
Australia doesnt need more magical thinking. We need policy integrity, political courage and practical solutions. End native forest logging. Stop approving new gas and coal projects. The government could do that starting today.
Carbon capture and storage has had its chance and blew it. Twenty years, a billion dollars, and Australia has nothing to show for it. If the fossil fuel industry wants to waste more money on CCS, fine. But not a single cent more of public money need be wasted on this fantasy.
But apparently, Australia is set to be the "sequestration nation". Huzzah!
In a perpetual triumph of hope of experience, Resources Minister Madeline King launched a new report on the "economic potential" of CCS this week from Low Emission Technology Australia. A fully networked CCS industry along the east coast could increase economic activity by tens of billions of dollars, according to the best-case scenario outlined in the report summary.
The rhetoric is polished; the facts are not.
Commercial-scale carbon capture and storage is like teleportation, a nice idea, but a total fantasy. Its perpetually 10 years away from fruition. Lets begin with Australias track record. I am old enough to remember when the coal industry promised commercial-scale CCS would be "bolted on" to our coal-fired power station fleet by 2015 at the latest. What a joke.
Australias biggest CCS project is Chevrons Gorgon facility off the WA coast. Derived from the Greek word Gorgos, meaning fierce, terrible and grim, Gorgon is aptly named.
It was supposed to capture up to 4 million tonnes of CO2 per year. It has never come close.
Its running at about one-third of its capacity and has missed every major milestone. Has any government demanded a refund? Cancelled their permits to operate, granted on the promise 80 per cent of its pollution would be buried? Of course not.
Chevron continues to pollute and profit, while CCS somehow still gets spun as a climate solution.
Then theres ZeroGena $4.3 billion flagship clean coal project that failed spectacularly, sequestered no carbon, and cost taxpayers more than $100 million. Gorgon and ZeroGen are not the exception. They are the rule. CCS is an abject failure by any measure.
Despite this, CCS is being resurrected once again - not because it works, but because it serves a purpose. It gives the fossil fuel industry the social licence to expand.
Take the Middle Arm project in Darwin. Sold as sustainable development, its actually a petrochemical hub, reliant on fracking the Beetaloo Basin, greenwashed with the promise of burying its emissions.
Or consider Santos Barossa gas project, one of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel projects in Australias history and one of the dirtiest gas project in Australia.
Governments arent just enabling this - theyre fast-tracking it. While essential environmental protections sit idle, the Albanese government prioritised legislation designed to help Santos bury its carbon abroad.
Special special ''sea dumping" legislation allows it to offset pollution by piping it to Timor-Leste for burial. Once again, the public interest is playing second fiddle to fossil fuel profits.
This is not a climate policy. Its a fossil fuel expansion plan with a CCS bow on top.
The International Energy Agency and IPCC do mention CCS in some scenarios. But what they project is not a green light for governments to bet the house on unicorn technology.
Rather, its a sober warning that if everything else fails - renewables, electrification, behaviour change - we might need some CCS. The path to net zero should not be built on desperation fallbacks and marketing strategies.
And yet, here we are in 2025, still throwing public money and favourable legislation at a technology that has captured more political spin than carbon dioxide.
Whats more, if CCS is so commercially viable, why does it always need billions in subsidies, bespoke legislation, and regulatory carve-outs to survive?
Why does the fossil fuel industry only pursue it when it allows them to produce more fossil fuels?
While we never seem to have enough money for things people need, like keeping the unemployed above the poverty line, or funding frontline domestic violence services, yet public funding for CCS seems to draw from the same bottomless bucket of money new submarines are funded from.
The harsh truth is this: every dollar spent on CCS is a dollar not spent on proven climate solutions or on literally any other services or infrastructure we need. And we need to ask: if CCS was going to work, wouldnt it have done so by now?
MORE EBONY BENNETT:
Carbon capture and storage a proven failure economically and environmentally is still touted as some miracle solution.
But what about what we know does work, and is available now? Are we at least investing in real solutions?
Nope. Trees are still the cheapest most natural way to sequester carbon, yet native forest logging is still perfectly legal in some states.
The NSW government has seen land-clearing jump by 40 per cent according to latest reports, and its long-promised Great Koala National Park is being logged instead of protected.
So, we can all stop pretending governments are actually interested in sequestering carbon.
The next decade is critical for climate action. We cant afford to waste it funding PR campaigns dressed up as policy.
We already know the best and simplest way to reduce emissions is to stop approving massive expansion of Australias gas and coal industry, most of which is exported overseas.
Australias fossil fuel exports are a huge source of pollution. But theyre also driving up the cost of living.
Australia Institute research shows the massive expansion of gas exports on the east coast has tripled wholesale gas prices and doubled electricity prices. Stopping Australias massive gas and coal exports makes sense economically and environmentally. And theres no special legislation required.
Australia doesnt need more magical thinking. We need policy integrity, political courage and practical solutions. End native forest logging. Stop approving new gas and coal projects. The government could do that starting today.
Carbon capture and storage has had its chance and blew it. Twenty years, a billion dollars, and Australia has nothing to show for it. If the fossil fuel industry wants to waste more money on CCS, fine. But not a single cent more of public money need be wasted on this fantasy.
Like a reanimated corpse from The Walking Dead, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the boondoggle "technology" that just wont die. As a way for governments to piss public money up the wall, CCS is incredibly effective. On almost every other front, its a spectacular failure.
But apparently, Australia is set to be the "sequestration nation". Huzzah!
In a perpetual triumph of hope of experience, Resources Minister Madeline King launched a new report on the "economic potential" of CCS this week from Low Emission Technology Australia. A fully networked CCS industry along the east coast could increase economic activity by tens of billions of dollars, according to the best-case scenario outlined in the report summary.
The rhetoric is polished; the facts are not.
Commercial-scale carbon capture and storage is like teleportation, a nice idea, but a total fantasy. Its perpetually 10 years away from fruition. Lets begin with Australias track record. I am old enough to remember when the coal industry promised commercial-scale CCS would be "bolted on" to our coal-fired power station fleet by 2015 at the latest. What a joke.
Australias biggest CCS project is Chevrons Gorgon facility off the WA coast. Derived from the Greek word Gorgos, meaning fierce, terrible and grim, Gorgon is aptly named.
It was supposed to capture up to 4 million tonnes of CO2 per year. It has never come close.
Its running at about one-third of its capacity and has missed every major milestone. Has any government demanded a refund? Cancelled their permits to operate, granted on the promise 80 per cent of its pollution would be buried? Of course not.
Chevron continues to pollute and profit, while CCS somehow still gets spun as a climate solution.
Then theres ZeroGena $4.3 billion flagship clean coal project that failed spectacularly, sequestered no carbon, and cost taxpayers more than $100 million. Gorgon and ZeroGen are not the exception. They are the rule. CCS is an abject failure by any measure.
Despite this, CCS is being resurrected once again - not because it works, but because it serves a purpose. It gives the fossil fuel industry the social licence to expand.
Take the Middle Arm project in Darwin. Sold as sustainable development, its actually a petrochemical hub, reliant on fracking the Beetaloo Basin, greenwashed with the promise of burying its emissions.
Or consider Santos Barossa gas project, one of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel projects in Australias history and one of the dirtiest gas project in Australia.
Governments arent just enabling this - theyre fast-tracking it. While essential environmental protections sit idle, the Albanese government prioritised legislation designed to help Santos bury its carbon abroad.
Special special ''sea dumping" legislation allows it to offset pollution by piping it to Timor-Leste for burial. Once again, the public interest is playing second fiddle to fossil fuel profits.
This is not a climate policy. Its a fossil fuel expansion plan with a CCS bow on top.
The International Energy Agency and IPCC do mention CCS in some scenarios. But what they project is not a green light for governments to bet the house on unicorn technology.
Rather, its a sober warning that if everything else fails - renewables, electrification, behaviour change - we might need some CCS. The path to net zero should not be built on desperation fallbacks and marketing strategies.
And yet, here we are in 2025, still throwing public money and favourable legislation at a technology that has captured more political spin than carbon dioxide.
Whats more, if CCS is so commercially viable, why does it always need billions in subsidies, bespoke legislation, and regulatory carve-outs to survive?
Why does the fossil fuel industry only pursue it when it allows them to produce more fossil fuels?
While we never seem to have enough money for things people need, like keeping the unemployed above the poverty line, or funding frontline domestic violence services, yet public funding for CCS seems to draw from the same bottomless bucket of money new submarines are funded from.
The harsh truth is this: every dollar spent on CCS is a dollar not spent on proven climate solutions or on literally any other services or infrastructure we need. And we need to ask: if CCS was going to work, wouldnt it have done so by now?
MORE EBONY BENNETT:
Carbon capture and storage a proven failure economically and environmentally is still touted as some miracle solution.
But what about what we know does work, and is available now? Are we at least investing in real solutions?
Nope. Trees are still the cheapest most natural way to sequester carbon, yet native forest logging is still perfectly legal in some states.
The NSW government has seen land-clearing jump by 40 per cent according to latest reports, and its long-promised Great Koala National Park is being logged instead of protected.
So, we can all stop pretending governments are actually interested in sequestering carbon.
The next decade is critical for climate action. We cant afford to waste it funding PR campaigns dressed up as policy.
We already know the best and simplest way to reduce emissions is to stop approving massive expansion of Australias gas and coal industry, most of which is exported overseas.
Australias fossil fuel exports are a huge source of pollution. But theyre also driving up the cost of living.
Australia Institute research shows the massive expansion of gas exports on the east coast has tripled wholesale gas prices and doubled electricity prices. Stopping Australias massive gas and coal exports makes sense economically and environmentally. And theres no special legislation required.
Australia doesnt need more magical thinking. We need policy integrity, political courage and practical solutions. End native forest logging. Stop approving new gas and coal projects. The government could do that starting today.
Carbon capture and storage has had its chance and blew it. Twenty years, a billion dollars, and Australia has nothing to show for it. If the fossil fuel industry wants to waste more money on CCS, fine. But not a single cent more of public money need be wasted on this fantasy.
Like a reanimated corpse from The Walking Dead, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the boondoggle "technology" that just wont die. As a way for governments to piss public money up the wall, CCS is incredibly effective. On almost every other front, its a spectacular failure.
But apparently, Australia is set to be the "sequestration nation". Huzzah!
In a perpetual triumph of hope of experience, Resources Minister Madeline King launched a new report on the "economic potential" of CCS this week from Low Emission Technology Australia. A fully networked CCS industry along the east coast could increase economic activity by tens of billions of dollars, according to the best-case scenario outlined in the report summary.
The rhetoric is polished; the facts are not.
Commercial-scale carbon capture and storage is like teleportation, a nice idea, but a total fantasy. Its perpetually 10 years away from fruition. Lets begin with Australias track record. I am old enough to remember when the coal industry promised commercial-scale CCS would be "bolted on" to our coal-fired power station fleet by 2015 at the latest. What a joke.
Australias biggest CCS project is Chevrons Gorgon facility off the WA coast. Derived from the Greek word Gorgos, meaning fierce, terrible and grim, Gorgon is aptly named.
It was supposed to capture up to 4 million tonnes of CO2 per year. It has never come close.
Its running at about one-third of its capacity and has missed every major milestone. Has any government demanded a refund? Cancelled their permits to operate, granted on the promise 80 per cent of its pollution would be buried? Of course not.
Chevron continues to pollute and profit, while CCS somehow still gets spun as a climate solution.
Then theres ZeroGena $4.3 billion flagship clean coal project that failed spectacularly, sequestered no carbon, and cost taxpayers more than $100 million. Gorgon and ZeroGen are not the exception. They are the rule. CCS is an abject failure by any measure.
Despite this, CCS is being resurrected once again - not because it works, but because it serves a purpose. It gives the fossil fuel industry the social licence to expand.
Take the Middle Arm project in Darwin. Sold as sustainable development, its actually a petrochemical hub, reliant on fracking the Beetaloo Basin, greenwashed with the promise of burying its emissions.
Or consider Santos Barossa gas project, one of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel projects in Australias history and one of the dirtiest gas project in Australia.
Governments arent just enabling this - theyre fast-tracking it. While essential environmental protections sit idle, the Albanese government prioritised legislation designed to help Santos bury its carbon abroad.
Special special ''sea dumping" legislation allows it to offset pollution by piping it to Timor-Leste for burial. Once again, the public interest is playing second fiddle to fossil fuel profits.
This is not a climate policy. Its a fossil fuel expansion plan with a CCS bow on top.
The International Energy Agency and IPCC do mention CCS in some scenarios. But what they project is not a green light for governments to bet the house on unicorn technology.
Rather, its a sober warning that if everything else fails - renewables, electrification, behaviour change - we might need some CCS. The path to net zero should not be built on desperation fallbacks and marketing strategies.
And yet, here we are in 2025, still throwing public money and favourable legislation at a technology that has captured more political spin than carbon dioxide.
Whats more, if CCS is so commercially viable, why does it always need billions in subsidies, bespoke legislation, and regulatory carve-outs to survive?
Why does the fossil fuel industry only pursue it when it allows them to produce more fossil fuels?
While we never seem to have enough money for things people need, like keeping the unemployed above the poverty line, or funding frontline domestic violence services, yet public funding for CCS seems to draw from the same bottomless bucket of money new submarines are funded from.
The harsh truth is this: every dollar spent on CCS is a dollar not spent on proven climate solutions or on literally any other services or infrastructure we need. And we need to ask: if CCS was going to work, wouldnt it have done so by now?
MORE EBONY BENNETT:
Carbon capture and storage a proven failure economically and environmentally is still touted as some miracle solution.
But what about what we know does work, and is available now? Are we at least investing in real solutions?
Nope. Trees are still the cheapest most natural way to sequester carbon, yet native forest logging is still perfectly legal in some states.
The NSW government has seen land-clearing jump by 40 per cent according to latest reports, and its long-promised Great Koala National Park is being logged instead of protected.
So, we can all stop pretending governments are actually interested in sequestering carbon.
The next decade is critical for climate action. We cant afford to waste it funding PR campaigns dressed up as policy.
We already know the best and simplest way to reduce emissions is to stop approving massive expansion of Australias gas and coal industry, most of which is exported overseas.
Australias fossil fuel exports are a huge source of pollution. But theyre also driving up the cost of living.
Australia Institute research shows the massive expansion of gas exports on the east coast has tripled wholesale gas prices and doubled electricity prices. Stopping Australias massive gas and coal exports makes sense economically and environmentally. And theres no special legislation required.
Australia doesnt need more magical thinking. We need policy integrity, political courage and practical solutions. End native forest logging. Stop approving new gas and coal projects. The government could do that starting today.
Carbon capture and storage has had its chance and blew it. Twenty years, a billion dollars, and Australia has nothing to show for it. If the fossil fuel industry wants to waste more money on CCS, fine. But not a single cent more of public money need be wasted on this fantasy.
Like a reanimated corpse from The Walking Dead, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the boondoggle "technology" that just wont die. As a way for governments to piss public money up the wall, CCS is incredibly effective. On almost every other front, its a spectacular failure.
But apparently, Australia is set to be the "sequestration nation". Huzzah!
In a perpetual triumph of hope of experience, Resources Minister Madeline King launched a new report on the "economic potential" of CCS this week from Low Emission Technology Australia. A fully networked CCS industry along the east coast could increase economic activity by tens of billions of dollars, according to the best-case scenario outlined in the report summary.
The rhetoric is polished; the facts are not.
Commercial-scale carbon capture and storage is like teleportation, a nice idea, but a total fantasy. Its perpetually 10 years away from fruition. Lets begin with Australias track record. I am old enough to remember when the coal industry promised commercial-scale CCS would be "bolted on" to our coal-fired power station fleet by 2015 at the latest. What a joke.
Australias biggest CCS project is Chevrons Gorgon facility off the WA coast. Derived from the Greek word Gorgos, meaning fierce, terrible and grim, Gorgon is aptly named.
It was supposed to capture up to 4 million tonnes of CO2 per year. It has never come close.
Its running at about one-third of its capacity and has missed every major milestone. Has any government demanded a refund? Cancelled their permits to operate, granted on the promise 80 per cent of its pollution would be buried? Of course not.
Chevron continues to pollute and profit, while CCS somehow still gets spun as a climate solution.
Then theres ZeroGena $4.3 billion flagship clean coal project that failed spectacularly, sequestered no carbon, and cost taxpayers more than $100 million. Gorgon and ZeroGen are not the exception. They are the rule. CCS is an abject failure by any measure.
Despite this, CCS is being resurrected once again - not because it works, but because it serves a purpose. It gives the fossil fuel industry the social licence to expand.
Take the Middle Arm project in Darwin. Sold as sustainable development, its actually a petrochemical hub, reliant on fracking the Beetaloo Basin, greenwashed with the promise of burying its emissions.
Or consider Santos Barossa gas project, one of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel projects in Australias history and one of the dirtiest gas project in Australia.
Governments arent just enabling this - theyre fast-tracking it. While essential environmental protections sit idle, the Albanese government prioritised legislation designed to help Santos bury its carbon abroad.
Special special ''sea dumping" legislation allows it to offset pollution by piping it to Timor-Leste for burial. Once again, the public interest is playing second fiddle to fossil fuel profits.
This is not a climate policy. Its a fossil fuel expansion plan with a CCS bow on top.
The International Energy Agency and IPCC do mention CCS in some scenarios. But what they project is not a green light for governments to bet the house on unicorn technology.
Rather, its a sober warning that if everything else fails - renewables, electrification, behaviour change - we might need some CCS. The path to net zero should not be built on desperation fallbacks and marketing strategies.
And yet, here we are in 2025, still throwing public money and favourable legislation at a technology that has captured more political spin than carbon dioxide.
Whats more, if CCS is so commercially viable, why does it always need billions in subsidies, bespoke legislation, and regulatory carve-outs to survive?
Why does the fossil fuel industry only pursue it when it allows them to produce more fossil fuels?
While we never seem to have enough money for things people need, like keeping the unemployed above the poverty line, or funding frontline domestic violence services, yet public funding for CCS seems to draw from the same bottomless bucket of money new submarines are funded from.
The harsh truth is this: every dollar spent on CCS is a dollar not spent on proven climate solutions or on literally any other services or infrastructure we need. And we need to ask: if CCS was going to work, wouldnt it have done so by now?
MORE EBONY BENNETT:
Carbon capture and storage a proven failure economically and environmentally is still touted as some miracle solution.
But what about what we know does work, and is available now? Are we at least investing in real solutions?
Nope. Trees are still the cheapest most natural way to sequester carbon, yet native forest logging is still perfectly legal in some states.
The NSW government has seen land-clearing jump by 40 per cent according to latest reports, and its long-promised Great Koala National Park is being logged instead of protected.
So, we can all stop pretending governments are actually interested in sequestering carbon.
The next decade is critical for climate action. We cant afford to waste it funding PR campaigns dressed up as policy.
We already know the best and simplest way to reduce emissions is to stop approving massive expansion of Australias gas and coal industry, most of which is exported overseas.
Australias fossil fuel exports are a huge source of pollution. But theyre also driving up the cost of living.
Australia Institute research shows the massive expansion of gas exports on the east coast has tripled wholesale gas prices and doubled electricity prices. Stopping Australias massive gas and coal exports makes sense economically and environmentally. And theres no special legislation required.
Australia doesnt need more magical thinking. We need policy integrity, political courage and practical solutions. End native forest logging. Stop approving new gas and coal projects. The government could do that starting today.
Carbon capture and storage has had its chance and blew it. Twenty years, a billion dollars, and Australia has nothing to show for it. If the fossil fuel industry wants to waste more money on CCS, fine. But not a single cent more of public money need be wasted on this fantasy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
12 hours ago
- Perth Now
PM weighs up Palestinian statehood call
Anthony Albanese is seeking a call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the government weighs up whether it will join international allies to recognise Palestinian statehood at the United Nations General Assembly. The Prime Minister is yet to confirm the move, despite the UK, France, and Canada all indicating they will make such a call. Mr Albanese has sought a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – something praised by Senior Coalition frontbencher Dan Tehan, who says current Australian-Israel relations have 'clearly been lacking' since the October 7 attacks in relation to communications at a 'prime ministerial level and a senior ministerial level'. 'Any dialogue which will enable both governments to put their case, and my hope is that the Prime Minister will be open to listening to Benjamin Netanyahu, so that he can get an Israeli view of what is happening on the ground and what they're trying to do to bring peace to Gaza,' he told Sky. Anthony Albanese has requested a call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. X Credit: Supplied Earlier, Sussan Ley told the ABC that the Coalition would only support the formal recognition of Palestinian statehood once 'peace' had been achieved, meaning Hamas would need to surrender and release the hostages. 'Everyone wants to see this war end … Everyone wants to say the bloodshed stop. Everyone wants to see critical food aid get to Gazans who desperately need it, and I'm pleased to see that that's happening,' she said. 'But this is critical – the war could end tomorrow if Hamas surrenders and releases the hostages.' The Prime Minister's potential call with Mr Netanyahu comes as Mr Albanese faces growing international pressure to recognising Palestinian statehood, with the UK and Canada joining France this week. This follows global condemnation of Israel for the starvation and the withholding of aid from Gazan civilians, something Mr Netanyahu has rejected and labelled a 'bold-faced lie'. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who Mr Albanese has been in contact with since the announcement, said the UK would support the motion unless Israel 'takes substantive steps to ed the appalling situation in Gaza and agrees to a ceasefire'. Canadian Prime Minister while Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said his position was incumbent on While Australia supports a two-state solution, acknowledging Palestine's statehood could not be 'just a gesture,' but done to forward the peaceful existence of Israel and Palestine. Mr Albanese has said the formal recognition of statehood cannot be 'just a gesture'. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia Speaking to the ABC on Thursday, he said Australia would only be able to make that statement 'once,' adding that 'once you make that declaration, you lose your capacity to negotiate and to influence outcomes to some extent'. 'We won't be driven by a time frame. What we'll be driven by is when the recognition of Palestine can make a contribution to the creation of two states,' he said. 'We think that arising out of what is a crisis, the world needs to look at the opportunity that there is not just to solve the current crisis, but how do we create security for both the state of Israel and the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians for their own state to be realised.'
Sky News AU
14 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Australia warned of looming ‘danger' from America amid social media ban
Sky News host Rowan Dean has warned of 'danger' Australia is currently facing amid a looming social media ban. 'As soon as we do come on to the radar around December ... the Americans will be looking at us and looking at how we are blocking access to YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, all these major American platforms,' he said. 'And the wrath of the Americans will come down, and it will see those tariffs go up, and it'll be the fault of the Albanese government and the Coalition.'
AU Financial Review
17 hours ago
- AU Financial Review
AUKUS review focus on fixing subs ‘could favour Australia'
Washington | The US Navy's expanded focus on submarine maintenance rates as part of the Pentagon's review of the AUKUS pact could prove positive for the Albanese government if it acts faster to upgrade facilities in Western Australia, according to a former navy chief. Richard Spencer, who was secretary of the US Navy during President Donald Trump's first term, said a better maintenance network would help alleviate Pentagon concerns about building enough nuclear-powered submarines to meet domestic demand before delivering second-hand vessels to Australia by 2032.
