Introduction

Framing the carbon management imperative

The Sixth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made it very clear that the natural carbon cycle on Earth has been shifted by human activity, especially over the past 200 years1. The resulting increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere and the oceans have led to substantial changes in our climate and many ecosystems, threatening human lives, biodiversity, and entire economies. Actions need to be taken fast to stabilize the climate, ideally reverting to atmospheric CO2 levels found before the Industrial Revolution, all the while ensuring economic prosperity and humans’ quality of life are not stifled by the action. A multitude of efforts will be needed, including expanding the portfolio of viable energy sources to avoid more fossil carbon addition to the atmosphere. A holistic approach must be developed that balances many considerations to ensure environmental success, economic viability, and societal adoption. Natural processes alone can no longer balance the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and even if new additions are stopped eventually, it will take centuries and more for the Earth’s natural carbon cycle to reduce atmospheric CO2 to acceptable levels. In light of this, three major tasks are thus key to success, each of which will be connected to many challenges in its own right. First, net-zero carbon energy systems must be implemented. Second, human interventions are needed to remove some excess CO2 from the environment actively. Third, a net-zero carbon future requires developing new carbon sources to ensure continued and globally growing access to essential carbon-based products. As detailed below, the time needed for such a transition is substantial and will take us well into the next century, at a minimum.

Options for carbon dioxide removal (CDR), include nature-based methods to increase CO2 uptake and technological efforts on enhanced weathering. Additionally, some carbon-based products can be made from biomaterials. While all necessary, additional work is needed to achieve a stable net-zero carbon future ultimately. This work will include carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS), as shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1: Simplified scheme of terrestrial carbon flows.
figure 1

Carbon capture technology with subsequent storage and utilization of the CO2 is one set of approaches to stabilize the global atmospheric CO2 budget.

Full size image

CCUS is often treated as a single category of technologies, but carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture and utilization (CCU) serve distinct, though partially overlapping, roles. There is a lot of confusion about what all these acronyms and the technologies behind them mean, what they do, and what their risks and benefits are. Glossaries that define the terms are not enough to bring clarity, and hence, with this perspective, we are addressing the need to contrast key approaches against each other. For example, we emphasize that the “U” points to the chemical conversion of CO2 to products. The use of CO2 as solvent, coolant, or to carbonate beverages is not considered CCU in this context. However, enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is explicitly discussed as a frequent stand-in for CCU in the United States. Still, it is not included as CCU in most discussions worldwide since the CO2 is not chemically converted into something else. In fact, in an evolution of EOR, the CO2 is not recovered anymore but left underground, rendering EOR essentially as a variant of CCS2.

Broadly, public understanding and perception of what CCUS is and why it is needed are underdeveloped3,4,5,6,7,8. Attitudes towards using CO2-made products are quite positive9. Still, overall, the awareness of necessary deployments, especially the construction of new pipelines for CO2 transport, has been met with substantial opposition, which has even led to the cancellation of projects10.

This perspective aims to highlight what CCS and CCU do as complementary, not competing strategies, show why neither makes sense alone, and project how both will find their place in net-zero scenarios.

The case for CCS in a net zero future

CCS is not a peripheral option but a core requirement for achieving net-zero and eventually net-negative emissions. This is not a speculative view: it reflects the repeated conclusions of leading scientific and policy institutions including the IPCC, IEA, and IRENA1,11,12. Across a wide range of scenarios, these institutions have identified CCS as indispensable—not only because it provides a least-cost pathway to deep decarbonization in key sectors, but because without it, the feasibility of limiting warming to 1.5 °C–2 °C is placed in serious doubt. In effect, the choice is not between CCS and an alternative zero-carbon pathway, but between CCS and the likelihood of failing to mitigate climate change at all.

The imperative for CCS has become more acute with the growing consensus that carbon removal is essential—not just emissions avoidance. Delivering net-zero requires not only the elimination of nearly all greenhouse gas emissions, but also deploying large-scale CDR to offset residual emissions and begin drawing down historical stock. CCS underpins two of the most scalable and durable forms of CDR: Bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) and Direct Air Capture with carbon storage (DACCS). Without these, the transition to a net-negative emissions economy—a requirement for climate stabilization later this century—is unlikely to be achieved.

Moreover, the structure of the global energy system reinforces the importance of CCS. Fossil fuels still supply over 80% of the world’s primary energy, and even the most ambitious mitigation scenarios from the IPCC project material quantities of unabated fossil fuel use in 2100. In this context, CCS is not a discretionary technology, but a structural feature of any serious decarbonization pathway. Its role is particularly pronounced in sectors where emissions are technically difficult or prohibitively expensive to eliminate through electrification or substitution—such as cement, steel, hydrogen production, and parts of the power sector.

Importantly, CCS is not a nascent technology. The core components—gas separation, compression, transport via pipeline or ship, and geologic storage—are all well-established and commercially deployed. Historically, the constraint has not been technological readiness but the absence of investable business models. This barrier is now being addressed through carbon pricing, contracts-for-difference, tax credits, and regulatory frameworks that de-risk CCS investments. Concurrently, technology innovation has significantly improved performance and reduced cost. Where CCS was once associated with substantial energy penalties, modern combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) integrated with advanced capture systems can achieve thermal efficiencies surpassing those of the current fleet without CCS.

Finally, CCS is inherently flexible. It can be retrofitted to existing facilities, preserving valuable industrial and energy infrastructure, and it can be integrated into new-build designs. This dual applicability supports near-term emissions reductions while enabling a longer-term structural shift to a low-carbon economy.

Tailwinds and headwinds for CCS

CCS is benefitting from increasingly strong tailwinds. Infrastructure and regulatory frameworks are maturing rapidly, with projects reaching final investment decision (FID) in jurisdictions, such as the UK, and comprehensive policy frameworks now taking shape in many parts of the world. These developments are enabling project bankability and accelerating deployment.

However, CCS is not without headwinds. It remains highly geography-dependent, requiring reliable access to suitable geologic storage formations. However, where available, underground storage capacity will unlikely be a limiting factor. Similarly, whilst it has been deployed in the past, its contemporary application to climate change mitigation implies deployment at a scale larger than what has been the case previously. Thus, mitigating this scale-up and performance risk will be key to unlocking financing and investment at the required scale. Finally, it is a capital-intensive technology. Abating emissions from a facility capturing on the order of one million tonnes of CO₂ per annum (Mtpa) entails investment costs in the billions, posing challenges to scalability absent sustained policy support and private-sector confidence13,14.

In sum, CCS is not merely a bridging technology—it is a permanent fixture in the portfolio of solutions required to achieve net zero and sustain a stable climate.

The case for CCU in a net zero future

Collectively, CCU technologies can provide carbon-based products that are essential to society while delivering CDR or avoidance of emissions, and revenue generation from sales. A comprehensive market analysis with growth projections for a wide range of CO2-based products shows that the magnitude of CO2 utilization in products is in the gigatonnes per year, offering revenues in the $trillions10,15. The abundance of carbon-based products in our daily lives offers rich opportunities for CCU16,17. For example, use in precast concrete and aggregate production alone provides significant potential for CDR, and the production of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) could enable the avoidance of gigatonne-level primary emissions. CCU is included as an option for net-zero in the IPCC 2023 Synthesis Report to the Assessment Report 6, with some deployment by 2030, noting the comparably high cost of CO2 mitigation1.

In contrast to CCS, CCU is geographically more flexible since it is not bound by the availability of suitable geologic storage sites. The many potential use cases allow for diversified commercial deployments that can create additional economic opportunities for underserved regions worldwide. Additionally, the localized production of critical products, such as high-purity graphite and aviation fuels can satisfy national security needs.

Many CCU technologies require high energy inputs for the chemical conversion of the CO2, which raises questions about the opportunity costs of the best (current) use of renewable energy18,19. This creates incentives for additional installations for renewable energy production. With the potential of CCU production using intermittent excessive renewable energy, integrating CCU and renewable energy can create a more stable and economically viable future energy system.

There are important nuances for CCU regarding CDR performance or CO2 emissions avoidance. The lifetime of a CCU product, whether by its chemical nature or the use case, must be considered. Long-lived (Track 1) products, such as mineralized CO2 in aggregates and concrete, provide CDR performance if non-fossil CO2 is used, while shorter-lived (Track 2) products feature emissions avoidance, for example, with the production of SAF20. While the chemical nature of CO2 is the same, irrespective of its source, in terms of CDR or avoidance, it is critically important to make life cycle determinations based on the source of the CO2 to accurately reflect whether or not new CO2 is being added to the atmosphere or oceans21.

A strong argument for CCU to produce aggregates is the ability to mineralize gigatonnes of CO2 with waste materials, which thereby no longer have to be stored or disposed of in costly procedures, such as landfills, fly ash ponds, and mine tailings sites20,22. This, therefore, provides additional benefits beyond the CDR function. Conversely, the ability to produce SAF with CCU provides gigatonne-level avoidance performance if the CO2 that is used is of non-fossil origin15,23.

Tailwinds and headwinds for CCU

Research and commercial interest in and deployment of CCUs have increased significantly over the past decade24,25,26. Some CCU products are attractive over incumbents because they provide improved performance, e.g., CO2-cured concrete is stronger than regular concrete and thus allows construction with less material27. However, many CCU products are drop-in replacements, typically at prices higher than those for incumbents10.

However, it is not performance alone that creates market interest. The substantial growth in international SAF demand creates opportunities for CCU to help address that demand as bio-based supplies are limited. Buyers clubs, such as the First Movers Coalition help organize and relay that interest.

Cost of production and lack of availability due to limited production facilities are still huge barriers to the rapid market penetration of CCU products.

Supporting policies take a leading role in launching new technologies, as past examples amply confirm, e.g., with the beginning of subsidies for the oil and gas industry in the early 20th century or the solar photovoltaic industry in the late 20th century. The key is to have policy support available for sustained periods. CCU-supporting policies have seen a less stable framework and have limited investment in building production facilities.

Regardless, CCU will become essential in a net-zero future to provide carbon-based products, covering the gap between plant-based and recycled carbon products10,28.

Policy and system design implications

Voluntary and policy-based carbon markets have created a flurry of activities that are difficult to oversee. Tax credits, such as those deployed in the US, European mandates, or voluntary markets in the US and Asia, all seek to incentivize CCU and or/CCS10,29. But in particular, the accounting methods for carbon intensities and other life cycle aspects are inconsistent and thereby can create significant market uncertainty. This inconsistency is especially true over long time scales and the assessment of additionality and leakage, respectively30,31. Key controversies exist related to the permanence of CDR, especially when built on nature-based solutions, such as forests or croplands32. More consistent definitions and regulations in this context are needed to give sellers and buyers certainty and to avoid double-counting of credits or offsets21,33,34,35,36,37.

While there are examples of CO2-based products that are already economically competitive—some aggregates, methanol, and urea—usually purely economic forces in the absence of policy guidance or voluntary action would inhibit the deployment of CCU. That is even more true for CCS, which is a paid-for-service waste management system, similar to what was implemented a long time ago for garbage pickup and wastewater treatment. Voluntary or government-imposed mandates can create demand for CCS by defining a market that depends on subsidies, mandates, or voluntary-based payments. Low-embodied carbon construction requirements call for using lower carbon intensity materials, even if these come at a price premium. However, that, in turn, creates incentives to produce materials, such as mineralized CO2 aggregates and CO2-cured concrete.

Construction and aviation are key examples of large markets with changing demands that need to be supplied, offering stability for companies to launch CCU production if additional demand drivers and cost incentives are added via policy support.

Policy-supported SAF mandates create pressure to develop supplies, including CO2-based SAF. A dramatically reduced environmental burden becomes a driver in this context that can offer more people the benefits of flying. The cost of capturing CO2 adds significantly to the cost of CCU products, and thereby, there is an incentive to use CO2 from sources with higher CO2 concentrations, such as cement and ammonia factories. While this creates less desirable final products if those have short lifetimes due to the associated fossil carbon intensity, it is a viable path to help launch the CCU industry and, in so doing, derisk the deployment and operation of carbon capture technologies at scale. Additionally, the cost of capturing CO2 from air and water will decrease over time as demand for such CO2 increases and the technologies mature.

Achieving this level of scale-up will require sustained public support from, inter alia, financial backing. It will therefore be vital to develop a robust framework for the evaluation of individual projects so as to ensure efficient use of increasingly scarce public resources. Whilst we leave the detailed definition of this support for a future contribution, we would a priori suggest that scale will be key - both scale in terms of total addressable final market for the CCU product, but also scale at which the carbon capture technology is deployed so that CCU projects can act to support the scale up and deployment of CCS projects. Similarly, we would emphasize the importance of not introducing selection criteria that would create unnecessary tension with efforts to deploy and scale this technology, e.g., attaching unnecessary primacy to concepts like permanence.

Conclusion

While CCS is often viewed as the cornerstone of deep decarbonization and a net-zero future, CCU also has an important, if more targeted, role that will increase over time. CCU offers a pragmatic alternative to avoid delaying climate action in regions lacking viable access to geologic storage or where permitting timelines are prolonged. Even where storage is viable, CCU can serve near-term roles by meeting market demand for carbon-based products that would otherwise rely directly on fossil-derived feedstocks. While this still involves fossil carbon, if CO2 is captured, e.g., from cement plants, it allows for a second life for that carbon atom—first through capture and then through substitution—which, though not perfect, is a material improvement relative to the status quo.

The upside of this approach is that CCU technologies can scale faster and at lower cost than relying exclusively on CO2 from biogenic sources, the air, or water. Learning curves can be accelerated, and no technology changes are needed to the CO2 conversion facilities once non-fossil CO2 sources become more cost-effective and abundant.

Not all CCU pathways are created equal. Durable applications, such as the production of mineral carbonates offer better alignment with long-term climate goals than short-lived products like fuels. However, carbon-based fuels and chemical products remain essential to the functioning of modern economies, and the full spectrum of needs cannot be met by biomass alone. CCU can help meet this unavoidable demand with a lower lifecycle emissions profile.

Importantly, CCS and CCU are not mutually exclusive. They can be integrated in complementary value chains as they start with the same capture processes—for example, CCU may act as a demand driver for CO₂ capture in the early stages of deployment, while geologic storage remains the ultimate sink for emissions that cannot be eliminated or durably used. This is especially important for large volume emitters that would locally overwhelm any production capacity for CCU products. Recognizing this complementarity enables a more pragmatic and flexible investment and infrastructure development approach.

A clear distinction must also be made between transitional pathways and permanent mitigation solutions. In the long run, the need for CCS may decline as fossil fuel use diminishes, but some emissions from hard-to-abate sectors will persist. We are always likely to require carbon-based compounds for critical functions—including dense energy carriers, polymers, and specialty chemicals. While the source of this carbon will likely evolve over time from the geosphere to the atmosphere or biosphere, the role of C1 chemistry in industrial systems is expected to become more—not less—important. In this context, CCU is not simply a diversion from mitigation, but a strategic tool that aligns long-term material needs with lower-carbon sources and pathways.

Together, CCS and CCU offer a flexible, geographically inclusive, and market-sensitive set of tools for reducing carbon emissions and enabling the transition to a net-zero and eventually net-negative economy.