Carbon Capture, Use, and Sequestration

In an effort for industries to mitigate their contributions to climate change, the U.S. federal government has funded the development of a expensive and controversial technology to make doing so economically viable. But how viable, and safe, is this technology really?

The Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) has gathered evidence to comprehensively educate both the public and decision-makers about the risks associated with this technology, known as Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Sequestration (CCS). With CCS, corporations emitting carbon dioxide capture, transport, and inject carbon underground, to store or use for industrial purposes. However, there are many risks associated with CCS that far outweigh the perceived benefits.

EIP has collected data on existing and proposed carbon dioxide pipelines in the USA, as well as information on abandoned oil and gas wells, and risk of carbon dioxide leaks. Its map overlays this information with community-level data, such as population, indications of tribal lands and other demographic information, and more.

Plastic credits are now being discussed as a strategy to address plastic pollution. But what is the reality of this approach?

Building on research published by SourceMaterial and Bloomberg with original research by Break Free From Plastic (BFFP) and the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), this report uncovers serious flaws in plastic offsets, credits and plastic neutrality. The listed projects on two of the main proponents of plastic offsetting — Verra and Plastic Credit Exchange (PCX) — were analyzed to provide a snapshot of the current realities of plastic offsetting, beyond the promises and marketing.