The Politics of Carbon Capture Are Getting Weirder

Carbon capture has always been contentious, but its biggest critics have traditionally been climate activists on the left. Now, in an unexpected twist, it seems to be getting caught up in the same conservative climate culture war that has overwhelmed electric stoves and ESG investing.

Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, took to social media this week to castigate the Republican supermajority in his state’s legislature for hosting a hearing on a bill about carbon sequestration. “Carbon sequestration is a scam!” he said in a pre-recorded video. “It’s part of climate ideology, and it should not be in law in the state of Florida, certainly should not be the work of a Republican supermajority.”

The video was uncanny. DeSantis sounded like the ideological activists he thought he was attacking. The idea of capturing carbon from industrial plants and storing it underground has long held bipartisan appeal among policymakers — attractive to Republicans in oil and gas states that want to keep those industries in business, and to Democrats as a way to reach across the aisle on climate solutions

The Florida bill in question isn’t just about carbon capture technology. It would create a carbon sequestration task force to make recommendations for how the state can increase carbon uptake in the environment — in trees, soils, and the ocean — in addition to using equipment to capture it and store it underground. These kinds of initiatives have long been popular with Republican policymakers, as well, in no small part because they can be pursued without talking about fossil fuels at all. During Trump’s first term, he championed the then-popular idea of planting a trillion trees as a climate solution.

In the video, DeSantis mischaracterizes the bill as calling for “injecting carbon into our soil, aquifers, and even our ocean floor,” conflating nature-based and technological storage solutions and making the legislation sound all the more threatening.

The video is not the only recent example of a prominent Republican coming out against carbon capture and sequestration. In March, Scott Perry, a Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania, co-sponsored the “45Q Repeal Act” with Ro Khanna, a progressive Democrat from California. The bill proposes killing the 45Q tax credit, a subsidy that pays between $60 and $180 for every ton of carbon pumped underground. The amount depends on from where the carbon was captured and whether it is simply sequestered underground or used to pump oil out of aging wells, a process called enhanced oil recovery.

Khanna and other Democrats have introduced bills to kill 45Q each year for the past several years, arguing that it was primarily subsidizing more oil production to the tune of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, fueling climate change rather than slowing it. But this is the first time a Republican has signed on as a co-sponsor. Perry painted the bill as a way to “reduce overregulation and fraud” and to help pay for the tax cuts that Trump has asked for. “The 45Q tax credit subsidizes technologies that serve no purpose beyond distorting energy markets,” states a press release from Perry’s office.

“It’s one of these, what we would call Baptist/Bootleggers type of coalitions,” David Reiner, a political scientist and professor of technology policy at the University of Cambridge, told me. “The people who hate climate change and the people who hate the idea that the way of solving climate change would be to engage the oil and gas industry.”

The environmental news outlet DeSmog has also reported on a growing conservative backlash to carbon capture in Canada, with a far-right group called Canada Proud running anti-carbon capture ads to its more than 500,000 followers on Facebook. “Carbon capture is billed as a green technology that stops carbon from entering the atmosphere,” the ads said. “But is it really good for the environment? As it turns out, not really.” Environmental groups like the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, and Food and Water Watch have been saying the same thing for years.

The rhetoric around carbon capture tends to oversimplify complex challenges into absolute statements. Critics say that carbon capture “doesn’t work” or is a “false solution.” Advocates say it’s “proven” technology that’s already avoided millions of tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere.

It’s true that to date, captured carbon has mostly been used to get more oil out of the ground. Oil and gas companies have thus far benefited more than people or the environment, despite their exaggerated advertisements saying otherwise. For many potential use cases, it’s far easier and cheaper to use renewable energy than capture and sequester carbon. The technology is expensive, and without heavy subsidies, it either isn’t economic or would increase energy costs. There are some cases, however, such as removing carbon from the atmosphere or decarbonizing cement production, where it could be one of the best solutions. The technology’s most progressive proponents often argue that the criticisms of carbon capture can be addressed with better policy. But there are no powerful political coalitions pushing for a different vision.

On the contrary, the most powerful proponents of carbon capture are pushing for more generous subsidies. In February, John Barasso, a Senator from Wyoming, introduced “The Enhancing Energy Recovery Act” with six Republican co-sponsors. The bill would expand 45Q so that all carbon sequestration projects, whether they increase oil production or not, qualify for the same amount of tax credit.

Reiner, the political scientist, mostly dismissed the significance of the DeSantis video to the broader policy debate around carbon capture. “Ron DeSantis doesn’t like carbon capture. Well, who cares?” he told me. There’s not much going on with carbon capture in Florida anyway. “The way the Senate works is it vastly over-represents the western, resource-rich states, all of whom have been very enthusiastic supporters of this,” Reiner said. “It’s very easy for Ron DeSantis to posture on this topic. It’s much harder to imagine that would gain a lot of traction in the Senate Republican leadership.”

At the same time, Reiner said the Florida governor’s comments reflect this broader upheaval happening in areas where there once appeared to be consensus. For example, after Trump was elected, there appeared to be relative agreement that the Inflation Reduction Act was safe because of how much money it was sending to Republican districts. But then the Trump administration came in and immediately began trying to shut down many of the law’s grant programs — a course of action few had predicted, mainly because it’s likely illegal for the president to end grant programs without permission from Congress.

Now, Republicans in Congress are considering axing some of the law’s most beneficial clean energy tax credits to pay for Trump’s tax cut package. Billion-dollar mega-projects to capture carbon directly from the air in Texas and Louisiana have shown up on lists floating around the Hill of programs to kill.

Perhaps more striking than the DeSantis video was a re-tweet of it by Wayne Christian, a Republican on the Texas Railroad Commission. The Commission is a state body that regulates the oil and gas industry in Texas, but whose elected members regularly receive the majority of their campaign donations from the companies they regulate. “You’re right [Governor DeSantis]!” Christian wrote. “Carbon Capture & Sequestration is no different than Wind/Solar subsidies. CCUS is Big Oil placating the Left & taking taxpayer dollars to do so. Energy policies should be meritorious & about consumers.”