idw – Informationsdienst Wissenschaft
Nachrichten, Termine, Experten
Nachrichten, Termine, Experten
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is regaining prominence in climate policy debates in Germany. A study published in Environmental Politics examines the reasons behind this comeback and shows that the strict limits originally envisaged for CCS were progressively relaxed throughout the political process. This increases the risk that the lifespan of fossil fuel infrastructure will be prolonged, potentially side-lining other climate protection measures.
“In Germany, CCS was long regarded as a political non-starter. This makes the question of how the technology returned to the centre of the climate policy debate within just a few years all the more intriguing,” says lead author Tobias Haas from the Research Institute for Sustainability at the GFZ (RIFS). In the late 2000s, an initial attempt to introduce CCS failed due to resistance from local initiatives, environmental NGOs, and low public acceptance. The technology subsequently fell out of political favour for years, although it continued to be viewed as a critical element in climate scenarios for achieving neutrality.
New narrative fosters greater acceptance
The political comeback was initiated by the so-called ‘traffic light’ coalition government (2021–2024), which revised the Carbon Dioxide Storage Act, developed a carbon management strategy, and worked on a long-term strategy for unavoidable residual emissions. The establishment of the umbrella term ‘carbon management’ opened the door to many technological approaches. In addition to CCS, these include the use of captured carbon dioxide (Carbon Capture and Utilisation, CCU) as well as processes for removing CO₂ from the atmosphere (Carbon Dioxide Removal, CDR).
“The concept of carbon management is politically appealing because it places CCS in a new context,” explains Haas. “The technology is no longer discussed in isolation as a controversial process, but as part of a more comprehensive management approach.” This shift in perspective played a key role in the political resurgence of CCS.
How rather than whether
At the same time, the debate shifted: the argument was no longer about whether CCS should be used; instead, the focus turned to how and to what extent its use should be permitted. In the process, the conditions originally laid down for the use of the technology were gradually relaxed. At the outset of the debate, there was still broad agreement that CCS should only be used where CO₂ emissions could not be avoided for technical reasons, and that avoiding emissions must, in principle, take precedence.
In 2025, the current federal government passed an amendment to the Carbon Dioxide Storage Act.
While this continues to place the emphasis on storage beneath the seabed, the original restrictions on its use were further relaxed. The law only excludes coal-fired power plants from using CCS—plants that are already scheduled for decommissioning by 2038. At the same time, the federal government is planning additional power plant capacity of 12 gigawatts, which is to become climate-neutral by 2045 using ‘technology-neutral’ approaches. In the authors’ view, this could also facilitate the use of CCS in new gas-fired power plants and thus prolong dependency on fossil fuels.
A clear definition of ‘hard-to-abate emissions’ is needed
The study identifies three reasons why the originally envisaged strict limits on the use of CCS could not be enforced: environmental organisations held differing positions, which weakened their collective political clout. At the same time, the public debate increasingly lost sight of the fact that many supporters were only willing to allow CCS under strict conditions. Finally, the conditions were further watered down during a protracted political decision-making process.
The authors therefore recommend that the use of CCS be contingent upon clearly defined conditions. Central to this is a binding definition of which emissions are truly ‘hard-to-abate.’ “Otherwise, there is a risk that more and more emissions will subsequently be classified as unavoidable and that the use of CCS will be gradually expanded,” says Haas. The role of CCS is therefore not merely a technical or economic matter, but a political decision regarding the path Germany wishes to take towards climate neutrality. The debate surrounding CCS exemplifies the risk of relying, in order to achieve climate targets, on technologies that have yet to make a tangible contribution to climate protection and where it is unclear whether they will ‘deliver’ on a large scale in the future.
Dr. Tobias Haas
tobias.haas@rifs-potsdam.de
Haas, T., Brad, A., Schneider, E., Hüttenhain, Z., & Koinzer, J. (2026). The renaissance of carbon capture and storage in Germany and the politics of conditionality. Environmental Politics, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2026.2700726
Criteria of this press release:
Journalists
Economics / business administration, Energy, Environment / ecology, Oceanology / climate, Politics
transregional, national
Research results
English
You can combine search terms with and, or and/or not, e.g. Philo not logy.
You can use brackets to separate combinations from each other, e.g. (Philo not logy) or (Psycho and logy).
Coherent groups of words will be located as complete phrases if you put them into quotation marks, e.g. “Federal Republic of Germany”.
You can also use the advanced search without entering search terms. It will then follow the criteria you have selected (e.g. country or subject area).
If you have not selected any criteria in a given category, the entire category will be searched (e.g. all subject areas or all countries).
