Treat Carbon Storage as an Inheritance, Not an Unlimited ATM

Reading the new Nature paper felt like someone had taken the scales from my eyes. The paper’s careful, risk‑based estimate — a prudent planetary limit of roughly 1,460 gigatonnes of CO2 for geological storage — forces a reframing of how we talk about carbon capture and storage (CCS). The message is both technical and moral: storage is real, useful, but finite, and we must steward it accordingly A prudent planetary limit for geologic carbon storage.

I first came to CCS as an engineer attracted to clever solutions: capture molecules, pressurize, inject into the deep earth — problem solved. But the study and the coverage that followed were a corrective. News outlets summarized this “reality check,” showing the headline reduction from industry optimism to a much smaller, practical figure Treat carbon storage like 'scarce resource': scientists. Independent expert reactions collected by the Science Media Centre underscore the nuances: coarse global screens are valuable for policy, but regional detail, economics, and governance matter deeply when turning potential into practice expert reaction to study of limits to underground carbon storage.

When I reflect on the implications, three convictions shape my thinking.

1) Treat storage as a scarce, intergenerational resource

If there is one ethic I take from this, it is stewardship. Geological storage is not a limitless ATM to be spent to prop up fossil‑fuel lifestyles. It is a resource we inherit briefly and must hand on. That changes decision rules:

• Prioritise storage for durable removals (e.g., direct air capture with secure long‑term storage, biomass with verified permanence) rather than for convenience offsets.
• Reserve storage for genuinely hard‑to‑abate emissions — cement, certain steel processes, aviation fuels — where alternatives are slow or absent.
• Avoid allowing CCS to become a political or corporate fig leaf that delays deep decarbonisation.

This is more than policy theatre. It is an ethical boundary: which uses justify spending a finite planetary resource today versus preserving it for future repair?

2) Allocate strategically with transparency and fairness

A scarce resource demands governance. My thinking here is practical and political:

• Create an explicit, international allocation framework that links storage access to demonstrated emissions reductions, clear accounting, and social licence.
• Prioritise projects that have co‑benefits for communities (jobs, local monitoring hubs) and avoid using storage to externalise harms onto vulnerable regions.
• Make storage permits time‑bounded and conditional on rigorous monitoring, liability arrangements, and public engagement.

The Science Media Centre reactions make a related point: different methods and data granularity produce different estimates; governance must be adaptive and evidence‑based, with independent validation at basin and national scales expert reaction to study of limits to underground carbon storage.

3) Double down on emissions reduction and diversify removal strategies

The practical consequence of limited storage is simple: the burden of solving climate change shifts further toward cutting emissions now. CCS remains an important tool, but a tool within a toolbox.

• Accelerate electrification, energy efficiency, and renewables so that fewer tonnes need storage in the first place.
• Invest in distributed, durable removal pathways that don’t rely solely on sedimentary basins: mineralisation, enhanced weathering, scalable nature‑based solutions where appropriate, and safer offshore techniques where governance allows.
• Support R&D into safe deeper offshore injection and mineral storage, because technological progress could expand usable capacity — but treat that as potential upside, not an excuse to postpone mitigation.

The Nature paper is judicious in its framing: the result is a prudent lower bound, not a final death knell for CCS. But prudence means planning under scarcity, not complacency A prudent planetary limit for geologic carbon storage.

A brief, personal caution

Technology narratives seduce us. They allow moral hazard — a comfortable belief that some future magic will fix our present excesses. I’ve worked on complex technical programmes long enough to know the limits of optimism. Engineering solves many problems, but it does not absolve values or policy. The right question is not simply "how much can we store?" but "who decides how we use this shared, intergenerational resource, and on what moral terms?"

The recent reporting and expert reaction should not paralyse us. It should clarify priorities: accelerate emissions cuts, preserve and prioritise storage for durable removals and hard‑to‑abate needs, create transparent governance, and invest in diversified removal research. That pathway honors both scientific realism and moral responsibility.

I believe we can design a future that is technologically capable and ethically wise — but only if we stop treating subsurface CO2 storage as infinite and start treating it as a legacy we must steward.

---

Regards,
Hemen Parekh