Recent protests and articles in Greece and France have raised concerns about planned carbon dioxide (CO2) storage projects, particularly in regions like Thasos and Seine-et-Marne. These concerns are understandable: CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) involves industrial infrastructure, underground geology, and questions of safety, cost, and fairness.
However, many claims currently circulating lack support from decades of international CCS research and operational experience. As researchers and institutions involved in CCS science, safety, and policy, we seek to address these concerns openly, respectfully, and factually.
This article consolidates key objections raised by civil society groups, commentary from the media, and petitions, and provides clear, referenced responses for each topic. We welcome scrutiny and discussion, but it must be grounded in what the science and project data actually show.
1. Safety and Toxicity: Is CO2₂ Dangerous?
Claim: CO2₂ is toxic and could asphyxiate people if it leaks. Concerns include past tragedies like the Lake Nyos disaster or wine cellar deaths and comparisons to explosive degassing, like champagne. Some also worry that toxic pollutants could be transported along with CO2₂.
✅ Response:
CO2₂ is a natural part of the air we breathe and exhale. It surrounds us — in fizzy drinks, greenhouses, fire extinguishers, and food packaging. In high concentrations, it can displace oxygen and pose a danger in confined or poorly ventilated spaces. This is why industrial workers take safety precautions when handling CO2 tanks or entering wine cellars or silos.
However, this risk does not apply in the same way to geological CO2 storage. Sites are located thousands of metres underground, inside rock formations, chosen for their ability to trap fluids and that have safely held oil, gas, or saltwater for millions of years. These formations are continuously monitored and engineered with multiple safety barriers, including pressure sensors, seismic systems, and emergency protocols. Injection happens under carefully controlled pressure, and the CO2 is gradually trapped — first physically, then by dissolving into salty water, and finally by reacting with rock over time. These layers of protection make sudden releases extremely unlikely.
Some comparisons — like to the Lake Nyos disaster — are misleading. That was a volcanic lake with no engineered containment. CO2 storage is a different process entirely, involving sealed rock, ongoing monitoring, and emergency safeguards. No pressurised voids are waiting to burst. Even the "champagne analogy" doesn’t apply: CO2 spreads through porous rock, not into a gas-filled bubble.
In over 25 years of operation, well-known projects like Sleipner (Norway) and Quest (Canada) have safely stored millions of tonnes of CO2 without any harm to nearby communities. These aren't test cases — they're part of a global, regulated effort using proven engineering.
As for toxicity, the CO2 used in storage is not raw factory exhaust. It is a purified stream, typically 95–99% CO2, with contaminants removed before transport. Toxic contaminants like NOx, SOx, or heavy metals are removed before compression in compliance with EU safety and transport regulations. Storage sites only accept known, clean CO2 streams, not industrial waste.
In short, CCS is not a dumping ground for pollution; it is a highly regulated climate technology used to safely and permanently store CO2 that cannot be avoided in sectors like cement or steel.
2. Seismic and Geological Risk: Will CO2 Injection Trigger Earthquakes?
Claim: Injecting CO2 underground could destabilise rock layers, trigger earthquakes, or cause dangerous shifts in pressure. Some worry that CO2 sites behave like fracking operations or oil drilling.
✅ Response:
Extensive international experience — including over 20 million tonnes stored in the North Sea — shows that when properly regulated, CO2 injection does not pose a seismic risk.
CO2 injection is carefully regulated to avoid pressure buildup. Operators monitor each site in real-time and inject at low, controlled rates. If any movement is detected, injection can be paused or adjusted immediately. This makes induced seismicity a minor and manageable risk, not a structural hazard.
CCS is fundamentally different from fracking or oil extraction. It does not fracture rock or release underground resources. Instead, CO2 is injected into porous rock layers that have safely held fluids (like salt water or natural gas) for millions of years. These formations are selected precisely for their geological stability and are sealed by impermeable rock layers that prevent upward movement.
Before injection begins, sites undergo extensive seismic surveys, 3D modelling, and stress testing. Long-term monitoring ensures that safety margins are respected throughout the project’s lifetime and after closure.
Projects such as Sleipner (Norway) and Quest (Canada) have demonstrated this in practice — both have safely stored CO2 for decades with no earthquakes or pressure-related failures.
3. Water Resources: Could CO2 Storage Contaminate Drinking Water?
Claim: Storing CO2 underground could pollute aquifers, contaminate drinking water, or allow chemicals to migrate through rock layers.
✅ Response:
CO2 is stored in deep rock formations that sit far below any drinking water sources. Between them lie multiple impermeable rock layers, which act as natural barriers.
Before any project is allowed to proceed, developers must prove — through seismic, geological, and hydrogeological studies — that there is no risk of CO2 moving upwards. These protections are enforced under the EU Water Framework Directive.
Storage formations are not new or untested — they’ve held salt water, oil, or gas naturally for millions of years. During CCS operations, they are continuously monitored to track pressure, chemistry, and any potential changes. If anything unexpected is detected, operations are stopped or adjusted.
To date, no evidence shows that any CCS project has contaminated drinking water. With proper design and oversight, the risk to water resources is extremely low and tightly regulated.
4. Transport & Infrastructure: Will CCS Bring Noise, Pollution and Road Damage?
Claim: CO2 transport will lead to traffic, road damage, noise, and pollution from trucks — especially if CO2 is brought in from other regions.
✅ Response:
In most large-scale CCS projects, CO2 is transported via pipelines or, in coastal regions, by ship. Pipelines are safer, cleaner, and already widely used for transporting water, gas, and oil. Trucks are rarely used — mostly during early pilot projects or construction phases — and always under strict safety and emissions rules. Heavy truck use is more common in the food and beverage industry, not in CO2 storage.
Where transport is required, operators are responsible for maintaining local roads, following traffic protocols, and accounting for emissions in lifecycle assessments. Any short-term disruption is minimal compared to the long-term climate benefit of permanent CO2 storage.
Some have questioned the logic of storing CO2 from other areas. But climate change is a global problem — and not every region has the right geology for storage. Transporting CO2 allows the decarbonisation of inland industries while making use of safe offshore or coastal storage.
Far from being a burden, CCS infrastructure can bring high-quality jobs, investment in ports and pipelines, and new opportunities for communities to lead in climate solutions. However, compensation alone is not enough — successful projects are built on trust, transparency, and clear long-term benefits for host regions.
5. What about Security Risks in War or Terrorism?
Claim: Storing CO2 underground could make areas vulnerable to attack or sabotage, releasing dangerous plumes of gas.
✅ Response:
All large infrastructure — including energy facilities, pipelines, and storage sites — must be protected against security threats. CO2 transport and storage infrastructure follows strict industrial safety and protection standards, just like gas or oil networks, which have operated for decades in sensitive regions.
CO2 is not explosive or flammable. However, a rapid release in a confined or low-lying area could displace oxygen and pose an asphyxiation risk. That is why pipelines and storage facilities are equipped with pressure control systems, leak detection, and emergency response plans. These systems are regularly tested and are part of the regulatory approval process.
All licensed operators must plan for emergencies, including sabotage or cyberattacks, and demonstrate how they would contain and respond to potential disruptions. These systems are not unprotected; they are monitored 24/7, regulated under strict European laws, and treated as critical energy infrastructure.
Importantly, large-scale CO2 storage does not pose a “ticking bomb” scenario. The gas is stored deep underground in porous rock, under pressure, not in surface tanks. There is no credible mechanism by which an attacker could trigger a large, sudden release that would endanger communities — but vigilance and good planning remain essential.
6. Economic Cost: Is CCS Worth the Investment?
Claim: CCS is too expensive and unreliable, diverting public funds from other climate solutions. If nearby industries close, as seen in some regions, storage infrastructure becomes pointless.
✅ Response:
It is true that CCS involves costs — but so did every other climate technology at the start. Wind, solar, and batteries were once expensive too. Today, capture costs vary: concentrated CO2 sources like ammonia or ethanol are already cost-effective, while more diluted streams (e.g. cement or waste) still require innovation.
Storage, meanwhile, is costly because it must meet very high safety and regulatory standards. But the technology is proven: over 6,000 km of CO2 pipelines operate globally, and more than 44 million tonnes are stored every year. Transport and storage have been part of industrial practice since the 1950s.
As infrastructure matures and multiple emitters connect to a single storage site, shared costs and economies of scale will bring costs down. CO2 storage also competes with the oil and gas sector for drilling and logistics, which can currently inflate prices — but that is expected to ease as demand balances shift.
Some argue that storage infrastructure no longer makes sense in places where industrial activity has declined — for example, following the closure of LAT Nitrogen in Grandpuits. But these sites are not built for one factory; they are part of a broader national and European CO2 management system. Suitable storage geology is rare, and each site will serve multiple emitters over time.
Crucially, CCS does not create open-ended public liabilities. Operators are required to provide long-term financial guarantees to ensure that storage sites are monitored and maintained even after injection ends — protecting the environment and the taxpayer.
7. Is This Just a Cover for More Fossil Extraction?
Claim: CCS is just a smokescreen for continuing fossil fuel production, especially by oil and gas companies.
✅ Response:
It is important to distinguish between the technology and its application. CCS is a tool for reducing emissions — how it is used depends entirely on policy, regulation, and intent.
In Europe, CCS is permitted only as part of legally binding net-zero targets and is primarily focused on sectors where emissions are unavoidable, such as cement, steel, and waste. The European Commission does not fund or authorise CCS to prolong fossil fuel extraction or gas-fired power.
Some CO2 storage projects are located near or within former oil and gas fields, not because there is a plan to extract more oil, but because these sites have known, well-studied geology that has safely held fluids for millions of years. These locations offer a reliable foundation for permanent CO2 storage.
Oil and gas companies often have the subsurface knowledge, offshore infrastructure, and technical capacity needed for storage. Their involvement reflects this experience, not a hidden agenda.
Using former production sites for CO2 storage allows scientists and engineers to reuse infrastructure, lower costs, and benefit from decades of subsurface data. This is safe, regulated repurposing, not extraction. CO2 is injected into the rock, not pulled out, and every step is monitored under EU law with full public transparency.
If fossil fuel production were being restarted, it would require an entirely different permit, public approval process, and legal framework. That is not what is happening in these projects.
In some other parts of the world, like North America, CCS has been used in coal or gas power plants. That does raise valid concerns when not properly regulated. But in Europe, CCS is a tool for reducing, not prolonging, emissions, and its use is tightly governed by climate legislation.
8. Have CCS Projects Really Failed?
Claim: CCS has already been tried and failed — why should it work now?
✅ Response:
CCS has not failed as a technology — but it has faced commercial and policy challenges, especially in its early years. Most discontinued projects were not technical failures but victims of unclear regulations, low carbon prices, or shifting political support.
Technically, CCS works. Sites like Sleipner (Norway), Quest (Canada), and CarbFix (Iceland) have safely stored CO2 underground for over a decade. Even Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) — where CO2 is injected to extract more oil, proves that long-term CO2 injection is feasible. While EOR is not a climate solution, it shows that the storage component of CCS is robust and well-understood.
There has only been one major technical difficulty — at the In Salah site in Algeria — and it occurred because the site geology was not ideal. That experience led to stricter screening and monitoring protocols now applied across the industry.
Saying CCS has “failed” is like saying solar energy failed in the 1990s. Early-stage projects provide the experience needed to lower costs, improve designs, and inform regulation. That is exactly what’s happening now — driven by clearer climate targets, improved funding models, and more public oversight.
The scientific community does not claim CCS is perfect. But institutions like the IPCC, the IEA, and the European Commission all agree that CCS is essential for reaching net zero — especially in sectors where CO2 emissions cannot be avoided, like cement, steel, and waste.
In short, CCS has been underused, not unproven. What it needs is a stable policy, not more pilot projects.
9. Public Transparency: Who Decides? Where’s the Information?
Claim: Local communities are not properly informed or consulted about CCS projects.
✅ Response:
Every CCS project in the EU must undergo public consultation as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This process includes public meetings, published reports, and online consultations.
It is true that confidence in national enforcement varies, particularly in areas with a history of underinvestment in infrastructure. However, CO2 storage is not solely approved by national authorities. It must also comply with EU-wide regulations — including the CCS Directive (2009/31/EC), the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), and the EIA Directive (2011/92/EU, amended 2014/52/EU). These legal frameworks require independent review, long-term monitoring, and public transparency.
Even in countries where public institutions are under strain, CCS cannot move forward without meeting binding European environmental and safety standards. Projects like PilotSTRATEGY are designed to deliver the scientific data, community engagement, and transparent analysis needed before any storage can be authorised.
Across Europe, responsible project teams are also going beyond legal minimums — hosting public events, publishing accessible reports, and creating online platforms for engagement. Public trust is not an afterthought; it is a prerequisite for any successful CCS deployment.
10. Do Farmers and Local Communities Support CO2 Injection in Fields?
Claim: There is no public or farmer support for injecting CO2 beneath agricultural land.
✅ Response:
Concerns about land use and long-term safety are legitimate; therefore, no CO2 injection is permitted until both robust scientific proof of safety and early engagement with local landowners and residents are in place.
Storage projects must not diminish the productivity of agricultural land. Injection occurs kilometres underground in sealed geological formations, with no impact on crops, livestock or surface water supplies. Before a project advances, comprehensive environmental and hydrogeological studies must confirm there is no risk of vertical CO2 migration or groundwater contamination.
Public support must be earned, not assumed. Responsible project teams meet proactively with farmers, cooperatives and rural communities to explain the science, listen to concerns and refine their plans accordingly. Where community backing is absent, the project cannot proceed.
When done well, CO2 storage can bring tangible benefits—upgraded infrastructure, scientific investment and new economic activity—especially in areas often overlooked by national projects. These advantages must be discussed openly and distributed fairly among those who live and work on the land.
11. Social Justice: Are Rural Areas Becoming Sacrifice Zones?
Claim: CCS is imposed on rural regions, while wealthier areas avoid the risk — turning places like Thasos or Seine-et-Marne into Europe’s CO2 landfill. Others argue that such projects will damage the local image and tourism economy beyond repair.
✅ Response:
It is understandable that people feel targeted when a project is proposed in their region. Many CO2 storage sites are in rural or remote areas—not because these communities are politically weaker or economically disadvantaged, but because suitable geology for safe, permanent storage is geographically limited and most often found in such regions. Only certain areas possess the deep, stable rock formations with the right porosity and sealing capacity to store CO2 securely for the long term.
Even so, site selection must never rest on geology alone. It requires early community engagement, transparent information sharing and clear local benefits—jobs, infrastructure upgrades and opportunities to lead on climate action. These communities are not being sacrificed; they stand at the forefront of Europe’s net-zero strategy by hosting the infrastructure we all need.
CO2 storage is not about dumping waste; it is a permanent, closely monitored solution for emissions we cannot yet eliminate. Unlike landfills, these repositories are hidden deep underground, geologically sealed and strictly regulated. Concerns about tourism deserve respect, but CO2 storage is neither visually nor physically disruptive; once operational, it often leaves little to see at the surface. Projects such as Sleipner in Norway and Quest in Canada have run for decades alongside thriving tourism, agriculture and conservation.
When done well, CO2 storage can become an asset, allowing communities to stand out as leaders in climate responsibility while preserving their identity and livelihoods.
12. Alternatives: Why Not Just Use the CO2 Instead of Burying It or Focus on Renewables?
Claim: CO2 should be utilised for algae, greenhouses, hydrogen, or concrete and use DAC, not buried - and public money would be better spent on renewable energy like wind and solar. CCS just delays the real transition.
✅ Response:
These are fair questions, and they reflect concerns that CCS might distract from more profound change. However, CCS is not an alternative to renewables or electrification; rather, it serves as a complement. We need all available tools to achieve net zero, and certain emissions, especially those from cement, steel, and chemicals, simply cannot be eliminated by renewables alone.
Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU)—the conversion of CO2 into products such as algae, synthetic fuels or chemicals—offers a valuable route to de-fossilise industrial feedstocks. Because most CCU applications re-release their carbon within months or years, they should rely on CO2 captured from the atmosphere (DAC) or from biogenic sources, but not from fossil fuels. To mitigate climate change, any unavoidable fossil-based emissions must instead be captured and permanently stored through Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). Scientists and policymakers therefore view CCU as a useful complement, but not a substitute, for permanent storage: it is not “storage versus use”; we need both approaches simultaneously.
Direct Air Capture (DAC) is an important carbon-capture technology, but it removes CO2 only from ambient air, not from industrial stacks or cement kilns. Because atmospheric CO2 is just 0.04 percent—versus roughly 4–15 percent in typical flue gases—DAC is far more expensive than capturing carbon at industrial point sources, which therefore makes more economic and climate sense today. DAC can still supply CO2 as a feedstock for conversion technologies—for instance in producing synthetic aviation fuel (SAF)—but to function as a climate-mitigation tool it must be paired with permanent storage, turning it into DACS. That means CCS infrastructure remains essential. The IPCC and IEA agree that meeting climate targets requires a portfolio approach combining DAC, CCS, nature-based solutions and renewable energy. CCS tackles the hard-to-avoid emissions from sectors such as cement and steel, while DAC offers one route to remove legacy CO2 already in the atmosphere. The scientific debate is not DAC versus DACS or CCS, but how to deploy both responsibly and effectively.
Some have argued that CCS diverts money from renewables, but this presents a false choice. We need both renewables and CCS, not one or the other. Renewables cut new emissions from electricity production, while CCS addresses the emissions we cannot yet avoid - especially in cement, steel, and waste incineration. In fact, many CCS projects are funded through separate policy streams focused on industrial decarbonisation rather than electricity. The IPCC, IEA, and European Commission all agree that to reach net zero, we need a portfolio of climate solutions working together - not in competition.
In short, CCS is not a diversion — it is a bridge. It enables rapid climate action in sectors that cannot yet fully decarbonise while we continue scaling up clean energy, electrification, and zero carbon innovation.
Conclusion: A Climate Solution Worth Getting Right
CO2 storage is not without challenges — and it should not be. Projects that interact with the subsurface and the atmosphere must be held to the highest scientific and ethical standards. However, public concern should be met with fact-based engagement, not fear.
Europe needs solutions that are grounded in evidence, guided by communities, and aligned with climate goals. Carbon capture and storage, when done right, is one of those solutions. It is not a shortcut; it is a tool — and one that must be developed with integrity, transparency, and accountability.
We welcome ongoing public scrutiny and involvement, and we are prepared to support open discussion based on what the data, the science, and 25 years of real-world CCS experience actually show.