Carbon Capture Scam Does Not Even Offset Its Own Emissions

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Paul Weldon

This is a remarkable story coming out of Iceland, and a warning for Net Zero zealots wanting us to go down the same route:

Climeworks in Iceland has only captured just over 2,400 carbon units since it began operations in the country in 2021, out of the twelve thousand units that company officials have repeatedly claimed the company’s machines can capture. This is confirmed by figures from the Finnish company Puro.Earth on the one hand and from the company’s annual accounts on the other. Climeworks has made international news for capturing carbon directly from the atmosphere. For this, the company uses large machines located in Hellisheiði, in South Iceland. They are said to have the capacity to collect four thousand tons of CO2 each year directly from the atmosphere.

According to data available to Heimildin, it is clear that this goal has never been achieved and that Climeworks does not capture enough carbon units to offset its own operations, emissions amounting to 1,700 tons of CO2 in 2023. The emissions that occur due to Climeworks’ activities are therefore more than it captures. Since the company began capturing in Iceland, it has captured a maximum of one thousand tons of CO2 in one year.

Read the full story here.

Let’s be clear – we are not talking about conventional carbon capture, the sort that Miliband wants to waste £22 billion on – capturing carbon dioxide from power stations and factories which emit the stuff.

Climeworks are into Direct Air Capture, DAC, which the CCC say we will need to offset CO2 emissions that we cannot totally eliminate.

DAC is an unproven process at scale, but will almost certainly be unimaginably expensive. In particular, DAC needs phenomenal amounts of energy, which itself produces CO2 emissions one way or another.

You might wonder why or how Climeworks are even doing this. The answer is carbon credits, as the article explains:

A professor of environmental and civil engineering at Stanford University in California says the carbon capture and disposal industry is a scam and is causing harm when it comes to climate solutions. More than 20,000 people pay Climeworks monthly for CO2 capture. A retired scientist in the UK says he feels like a gullible idiot after buying carbon credits from Climeworks, which he hopes to receive in about six years. However, the wait will be much longer unless significant progress is made in capturing carbon quickly. He can therefore expect to receive the two tonnes – which he has already paid for – in a few decades at the earliest.

Climeworks has sold a significant amount of carbon credits. They are not only credits that have already been certified and captured, but also a large amount of credits that Climeworks plans to capture in the future. According to the company, one third of all the credits that the Mammoth capture plant is expected to capture from the atmosphere over the next 25 years have already been sold. About 21 thousand people have a subscription with the company, where they pay monthly for the capture and disposal of carbon credits. The waiting time to receive these carbon credits can be up to six years, according to the company’s terms. If Climeworks’ capture figures do not improve, the wait could extend from years to decades.

In short, the whole thing is a crooked scam. And those who have fallen for it through their wish to virtue signal deserve no sympathy.

5 24 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

49 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 17, 2025 2:19 am

Geoengineering schemes are entirely without merit.

Reply to  Steve Case
May 17, 2025 7:40 am

Not entirely. I have a window air conditioner that captures a prodigious amount of the other greenhouse gas, water vapor. If they get serious about credits for capturing greenhouse gasses, I could be sitting on a gold mine.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Steve Case
May 17, 2025 8:50 am

Steve Case: “Geoengineering schemes are entirely without merit.”

Whether something being proposed is or is not without merit all depends on what the stated goals are and what means are necessary to get from here to there.

There is every reason to believe that solar geoengineering through use of SRM reflective particles could quickly and reliably reduce global mean temperature by as much as 2C within a period of five years or less, for the expenditure of possibly 100 billion USD annually in perpetuity.

If the climate activists are willing to accept the strong risk of collateral damage, mostly SRM-induced crop failures, then they can get the goal of a 2C reduction in global mean temperature accomplished fairly quickly and fairly reliably without forcing us to spend trillions of dollars on their Net Zero schemes.

However, by doing so, they would be putting themselves out of business, which is why they will never sign on to a program of solar geoengineering using reliable SRM technologies.

Reply to  Beta Blocker
May 17, 2025 9:35 am

If the climate activists are willing to accept the strong risk of collateral damage,

Problem is, such schemes force everyone else to accept the risk along with the activists, whether they want to or not.

Andrew St John
Reply to  Beta Blocker
May 19, 2025 4:54 am

Am I dreaming about this so-called Geo-engineering? So, one country decides that they must dim the Sun. And thereby cause crops in other countries to be less productive. What in God’s name are they thinking that they had the right to impair another countries agriculture. In international law, this is surely a “casus belli”. Hubris.

KevinM
Reply to  Beta Blocker
May 19, 2025 8:47 am

I don’t understand why air particulates consistently win popularity contest vs giant tinfoil unfolded in space between earth and sun.

Crispin in Val Quentin
Reply to  Beta Blocker
May 19, 2025 12:34 pm

Beta

If the addition of sulphur-based reflective crystals was effective at shading the Earth (which is about the dumbest thing we could possible do) there is a large downstream effect that is predictable based on known atmospherics. Sulphur containing particles act as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN’s) and cause water vapour in the air to condense.

Initially this will add to cloud formation increasing the cloud coverage shading the earth. It only takes a 2.5 % increase in cloud cover to move the earth into an ice age (ref Svensmark). Then the air will clear, in a sense like a giant silver iodide rain-making experiment. This will make the atmosphere more transparent, ultimately increasing the temperature of the oceans and near-surface atmosphere.

It is hard to think of something more foolish if the plan is to “cool the Earth”. The Earth does not need cooling, it needs warming. An additional 3 or 4 degrees would bring massive benefits to the entire ecosphere. The Sahara would turn once again into farmland, the strength of tropical cyclones would fall and vast areas of Canada and Siberia would once again support forests and crops.

If the CO2 concentration could be boosted to 800 ppm (which looks impossible based on the availability of fossil fuels) the world would be a much happier, wealthier and better fed place. The enormous amount of energy needed to warm homes in the NH would be moderated. As this warming would take place over a few centuries, the relocation of cities and ports to higher elevations will take place as the infrastructure ages and is cycled out.

It is unfortunate that ignorant physicians have misdiagnosed the malady, then advised that warmth is worse than cold and prescribed poison as the cure. It is that sort of armchair speculation that leads to such nonsense as spraying molecular mirrors into the upper atmosphere. Geologically, we are on the precipice of an Ice age, and these guys are prescribing pneumonia to cure a cold.

Ed Zuiderwijk
May 17, 2025 2:25 am

Suckers! There’s one born every minute.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
May 17, 2025 4:31 am

People who invest in this sort of idiotic scheme, deserve to lose their money. !

Scissor
Reply to  bnice2000
May 17, 2025 5:13 am

Taxpayer funded.

Ex-KaliforniaKook
Reply to  Scissor
May 17, 2025 2:40 pm

People who elect people who invest in this sort of idiotic scheme deserve to lose their money!

KevinM
Reply to  Ex-KaliforniaKook
May 19, 2025 8:50 am

… and people who lost the election to people who elect people who invest in this sort of idiotic scheme need to try harder next time?

Reply to  Scissor
May 19, 2025 8:11 am

Three hundred and seven trillion of taxpayer money (in USD) that does not exist has already been spent worldwide.

Taxing unborn children is a very popular idea for all governments.

Because thats exactly what they are doing.

KevinM
Reply to  doonman
May 19, 2025 8:53 am

Yup. Taxes are not big election topics anymore for fear that voters might notice their government is just paying the minimum on variable rate loans.

KevinM
Reply to  Scissor
May 19, 2025 8:49 am

I guess their votes could be categorized as investing.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
May 17, 2025 7:09 am

About 21 thousand people gullible morons have a subscription with the company, where they pay monthly for the capture and disposal of carbon credits”

Fixed!

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
May 18, 2025 4:07 am

I don’t know if the carbon credits are transferable, but I wonder how many of these gullible morons thought they were smart investments and thought they were getting in early and could resell the credits later at a profit.

Keitho
Editor
May 17, 2025 2:27 am

A metaphor for the entire Climate Change scam.

James Snook
Reply to  Keitho
May 17, 2025 5:29 am

It makes the tulip bulb bubble look sensible.

KevinM
Reply to  James Snook
May 19, 2025 8:55 am

Shipped by sail and grown in open air… yesteryear’s tulips were probably better solution.

Coeur de Lion
May 17, 2025 2:35 am

Why isn’t it mentioned incessantly that there is not a chance of reducing the rise in atmospheric CO2 as recorded on the Keeling Curve at Moana Loa? So CCS is a futile non-starter. Why even the COVID deindustrialisation didn’t show up a whit on the magnified sawtooth. Anyone going to Asia to STOP coal burning? Yeah, likely

strativarius
May 17, 2025 2:51 am

Another 100% failure.

The consistency of that rate is, frankly, alarming.

Scissor
Reply to  strativarius
May 17, 2025 5:17 am
James Snook
Reply to  Scissor
May 17, 2025 5:27 am

That’s even more ludicrous!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Scissor
May 17, 2025 7:12 am

In other News of the Ridiculous, Researchers canvass for volunteers to manually count all the grains of sand on all the world’s beaches.

Reply to  Scissor
May 17, 2025 8:16 am

Since the pH of the is ca. 8.1 most of the CO2 is converted bicarbonate and carbonate anions. These are used by shell fish, coral, starfish, snails ,etc. A large portion of CO2 is immediately used phytoplankton, sea weeds and grasses, and kelp. The carbon in all the plants and animals comes mostly from atmospheric CO2. Large amounts of CO2 is emitted thermal vents.

Presently, at the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry is 428 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has 0.841 g of CO2. Most all people do not know how little CO2 there is the air. We really do not have to worry about CO2.

HB
May 17, 2025 3:12 am

Long suspected this .
Typical con job the only reason all these players are making this stuff is they think there is easy money

babelshark
May 17, 2025 3:18 am

Please stop calling CO2 “carbon”

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  babelshark
May 17, 2025 7:12 am

It’s the new Newspeak.

not you
Reply to  babelshark
May 17, 2025 2:01 pm

please stop calling hydro carbons ‘fossil fuels’

Tom Halla
May 17, 2025 3:26 am

Green indulgences.

Rod Evans
May 17, 2025 3:45 am

I gather the total CO2 generated/yr from man made sources is around 37 to 40 Billion tonnes. With that being the scale of things associated with CO2, this Plant capturing only 1000 tonnes/yr would have to be repeated 37 million times over to even meet the current emissions.
An example of a complete waste of time and money.
Next.

Dan Hughes
May 17, 2025 3:57 am

Who knew it takes tons o’ energy to move massive amounts of gases like air?

Scissor
Reply to  Dan Hughes
May 17, 2025 5:25 am

This scheme, mentioned above, moves water in addition to CO2. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr788kljlklo

Bob B.
May 17, 2025 4:33 am

If you’ve ever been told, by your mother, spouse, friends, etc., to stop being so sarcastic then contact me at SarcWorks. For an annual fee, we promise to say something non- sarcastic on your behalf and, within a decade or so, send you Sarcastic Credits to offset your sarcasm and improve or save your relationships with your spouse or whoever. Act immediately and use code SCAM to receive free shipping!

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Bob B.
May 17, 2025 5:50 am

I think my Sarcometer just broke. Can you send me a new one?
Thanks.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Bob B.
May 17, 2025 7:14 am

You need a snappier name, maybe SarCreds? SarcastiCreds?

oeman50
May 17, 2025 4:43 am

This was doomed from the start. Removing CO2 at 420 PPM is a polishing operation, not a bulk removal. It magnifies small non-ideal factors into large ones.

May 17, 2025 4:43 am

Example number 1.0000.0000.0000 of the money scam generally known as Climate Change Warming Crisis Boiling.

May 17, 2025 6:53 am

“Carbon units”? 🙄

Reply to  Paul Hurley
May 17, 2025 7:07 am

I noticed that also.
Reminded me of Star Trek where “Vger” was going to repair the Enterprise by eliminating the “biological units”. 😎

Reply to  Gunga Din
May 17, 2025 9:38 am

Reminded me of Star Trek where “Vger”

“Where Nomad had gone before”
Didn’t Nomad use the term “carbon units”?

Reply to  Tony_G
May 17, 2025 10:46 am

I think so. I don’t remember for sure.
The first movie looked like a rewrite of the TV episode with Nomad.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Paul Hurley
May 17, 2025 7:15 am

That would be people?

Ex-KaliforniaKook
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
May 17, 2025 2:47 pm

That would be all life – but starts with humans.

atticman
Reply to  Paul Hurley
May 20, 2025 2:01 pm

Yes. How about “lumps of coal”?

fansome
May 17, 2025 11:28 am

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics rules!

Bill Parsons
May 17, 2025 1:14 pm

Swiss CO₂ removal firm Climeworks to downsizehttps://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/emissions-reduction/swiss-co%E2%82%82-removal-start-up-forced-to-downsize/89324230

They’re laying off 10% even though their cc scheme has reached the astounding efficiency of .29%

According to Icelandic investigative journalist Bjartmar Alexandersson, both are performing far below their promises: “We found that the numbers don’t make sense. They claim to capture more CO₂ than they actually do.”

Mammoth, for example, was supposed to be able to capture over 36,000 tons per year from the atmosphere. However, in its first year, it captured just 105 tons, according to Alexandersson.

Rangeland carbon capture also running into harsh reality: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/climate-environment/netflix-and-metas-carbon-credits-snared-in-dispute-with-maasai-herders-4f01a59f

Both Netflix and Meta invested in sequestering Kenya rangeland. Who could have imagined that the nomadic Maasai herders who have have used that grassland for milennia still thought it was theirs?

Lawyers and rights groups representing pastoralists say the ruling, which applies to one of the biggest conservancies, invalidates around 20% of the entire project’s credits. They say credits in around half of the project’s 14 wildlife conservancies could be vulnerable to similar lawsuits.

The whole cc / cagw edifice is collapsing.

KevinM
May 19, 2025 8:44 am

Would it be a good idea if it worked?