Safe underground carbon storage would only reduce warming by 0.7°C, analysis finds. The result is almost ten times lower than previous estimates of around 6°C, which considered the total global potential for geological storage.

https://phys.org/news/2025-09-safe-underground-carbon-storage-07c.html

by The_Weekend_Baker

11 comments

  1. I mean even if this is wrong and we have more co2 storage space, who is going to pay for it?

    Our best bet is to cut down our emissions in the next 15 years. Power grid needs to be 100% green, we need EVs, and we need to electrify buildings/industries.

  2. better 0.7 degrees C than nothing at all.

    but, this shows that this alone is not a major solution, only one solution among many that will be needed.

    as most everyone knows, the biggest thing that must be done to solve global warming is to stop putting CO2 in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. that’s the main priority.

  3. There is a push right now to turn carbon storage into the next carbon offset sham—ANYTHING to actually avoid emissions.

  6. Takes a lot of energy to put carbon capture in place. Even if its solar or wind energy.

  7. Been saying it for years. Carbon capture underground storage is a scam put on to make energy companies look like they give a hoot.

  8. This is for pumped underground carbon sequestration only.  I’m frankly surprised it is this much 

  9. Only .7? That’s pretty massive really.

    What is with everything having to be one shot solutions or it’s garbage?

  10. carbon storage is just another grift cooked up by the oil companies so they can make a bit more money

  11. IIRC once we reach something like 2-5C warming, I can’t remember the exact number, the soil starts to leak the CO2 back into the atmosphere. So realistically it’s not a solution.

    Politically, carbon storage is a smokescreen to mask renewables. Investing in actual policies costs $10T globally. Investing in carbon storage is basically a vanity project that a few gigantic companies can throw a few M at and then 3x that on their marketing around it.

    The damage from climate change is expected to cost $100T globally or more.

    Also, the current narrative is “how do we get the people in power to be practical about this.” The answer is two parts.

    1) There’s nothing practical about $100T damage globally (close to more than the value of the global market.)

    2) They don’t want to change and don’t care about you, so politely asking someone who’s actively trying to kill you to change their minds is impractical.

Comments are closed.