Carbon capture is often discussed as if it is a single climate solution. In reality, the term is used to describe several very different strategies, each with different benefits, risks, timelines, and planning implications. In this “Carbon Capture Series” we explore a few different aspects and considerations of carbon capture and how it relates to climate action plans and strategies.
Carbon Capture vs Carbon Management
The U.S. Department of Energy uses the broader term carbon management to describe a connected set of activities: carbon capture from industry and power generation, carbon dioxide transport, conversion, geologic storage, hydrogen with carbon management, and carbon dioxide removal. DOE also notes that this definition does not include the many strategies that avoid CO₂ emissions in the first place, such as replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy, switching boilers to heat pumps, or redesigning systems to use less carbon-intensive materials.
That distinction is critical for local governments, counties, state agencies, and collaborative climate planning teams.
The Different Categories of Carbon management
Carbon management can include at least four different categories:
Avoided emissions are emissions that never occur because a community uses less fossil fuel or reduces the need for high-emitting activity. Examples include energy efficiency, electrification, renewable electricity, transit, compact land use, reduced vehicle miles traveled, methane reduction, and waste prevention.
Point-source carbon capture captures CO₂ from a specific facility, such as a cement plant, ethanol facility, refinery, steel mill, power plant, or hydrogen production facility. The facility may continue to emit other pollutants, use energy, and require fuel, but a portion of the CO₂ stream is captured before release.
Engineered carbon dioxide removal removes CO₂ that is already in the atmosphere. Examples include direct air capture with storage, biomass carbon removal and storage, enhanced mineralization, and some forms of biochar. The US Department of Energy includes direct air capture, soil carbon sequestration, biomass carbon removal and storage, enhanced mineralization, ocean-based carbon removal, and afforestation/reforestation within the broader carbon dioxide removal field.
Biological carbon sequestration increases carbon stored in trees, soils, wetlands, prairies, vegetation, and other ecosystems. These strategies are often most valuable when they also reduce heat, improve stormwater management, protect habitat, support biodiversity, and strengthen community resilience.
Carbon Management categories should not be treated as interchangeable.
A ton of CO₂ avoided through building electrification is not the same planning decision as a ton captured from an industrial facility. A ton stored in a young forest is not the same as a ton injected into a regulated geologic formation. A ton of carbon stored in soil may provide major local benefits, but it may also be harder to measure and more vulnerable to future land management changes than a verified direct emissions reduction.
The IPCC is clear that carbon dioxide removal can be important for achieving net-zero emissions, especially to counterbalance residual emissions from difficult-to-decarbonize sectors. But the IPCC is also clear that carbon dioxide removal is not a substitute for deep emissions reductions.
That is the practical planning lesson.
For public-sector climate plans, carbon management should begin with the mitigation hierarchy: reduce emissions first, then protect and restore natural carbon systems, then evaluate engineered capture and removal only where the technical case is strong. Carbon capture should not become a reason to delay efficiency, electrification, renewable energy, transportation reform, waste reduction, or methane mitigation.
Scale is Important
Scale is another reason for caution. The International Energy Agency reported that as of the first quarter of 2025, the world had just over 50 million metric tons of operational CO₂ capture and storage capacity. The current project pipeline could increase that significantly by 2030, but it would still be small compared with the gigaton-scale storage assumed in many long-term climate scenarios. A 2024 Nature Communications study estimated that a feasible global benchmark for CO₂ storage by mid-century may be around 5–6 gigatons per year, which would require a massive buildout from current levels.
This does not mean carbon capture or carbon removal has no role. It means the role should be specific, limited, and transparent.
What this means for climate planning
For municipal, county, and state climate planning, the central question should not be, “Do we support carbon capture?” The better question is, “Which emissions can be avoided now, which carbon stocks should be protected or restored, and which remaining emissions are truly hard enough to justify capture, transport, storage, monitoring, and long-term responsibility?”
Carbon management is not one thing. A credible climate plan that focuses on carbon capture as an important strategy should not treat it as one.