The government is spending billions to store carbon dioxide – while companies can purchase the right to continue emitting as before. Critics are growing louder against the investment in so-called negative emissions, questioning what the technology truly achieves. Engineer Ingvar Ericson warns that Sweden risks building an expensive market for climate compensation – where recorded emission reductions replace genuine climate benefit.

As Sweden invests billions to create so-called negative emissions, criticism is mounting regarding what the technology truly accomplishes. According to engineer Ingvar Ericson, the much-discussed BECCS technology runs the risk of becoming a system for climate bookkeeping – where stored carbon dioxide is used to legitimize new emissions.

“What has not been discussed is what happens when the stored carbon dioxide is sold. It’s not the CO2 itself being sold, but certificates that entitle someone else to continue emitting,” he tells Samnytt.

READ ALSO: Physics Professor: Pointless to Capture CO2 Molecules in the Atmosphere

BECCS, Bio Energy Carbon Capture and Storage, means that carbon dioxide from biofuels is captured and stored deep underground, often in the bedrock beneath the North Sea. On paper, this is counted as negative emissions.

But according to Ericson, the picture changes when the climate value is sold on.

“As long as the CO2 is just stored, it counts as a negative emission. But the day you sell the certificate, you allow someone else to emit the equivalent amount. The net result is not a reduction in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere – you simply slow the increase,” he says.

We’re spending money in the wrong place. There are other things we could use this money for. It’s often said in the debate that it’s necessary to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, what has already been released – and that it can be done this way. But that’s not possible.

Ingvar Ericson, Engineer

What’s being traded on the emerging market is not the CO2 itself, but its climate status.

“The carbon dioxide remains underground. What is sold is the right to say that the emission is biogenic. And biogenic CO2 is considered climate neutral since it is part of the natural cycle.”

READ ALSO: Expert: CO2 Storage is “Magical Thinking” – Should Be Shut Down

The system is intended for companies with emissions that are hard to reduce.

“They keep emitting as usual but buy a certificate and refer to the fact that an equivalent amount of CO2 has been stored elsewhere.
Ericson believes this is a technically advanced line of reasoning that risks being misunderstood – or misused – in the climate debate.”

“The reasoning stops at the idea of storing the CO2. But what matters is what happens when the climate value is sold on.”

Dependent on Government Funding

According to Ericson, the technique is not economically feasible without extensive government support. He refers to Stockholm Exergi’s planned facility in Värtan.

“They requested and received 1,760 SEK per ton in government support. And that’s not the whole deal. On top of that, they get paid by companies buying the certificates.”

READ ALSO: Stockholm Goes Big on ‘Amazing Gadget’ to Save the Climate

What societal economic consequences do you foresee?

“We’re spending money in the wrong place. There are other things that we could use this money for. In the debate, it’s said that it’s necessary to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, what has already been released – and that it can be done this way.”

“But that’s not possible,” he continues, adding:

“The whole system also cannot be put together economically without state support. We’re talking very large sums.”

Parallels to Other Green Failures

You draw parallels to other failed so-called green industrial projects – what do you see as the risks of repeating the same mistakes?

“We have a number of such projects in the north of Sweden, where government money has been put in, one way or another. There are Hybrit, Northvolt, and Stegra. And those who have looked at the finances for Stegra and others say it’s not going to work out.”

READ ALSO: Taxpayers Cover Northvolt’s Crash

He also points out that several energy companies previously explored CO2 capture but chose not to proceed.

“Vattenfall looked at projects in Uppsala and Jordbro but dropped them because they weren’t financially viable. The market for certificates is not fully developed and remains uncertain.”

I agree that it is CO2 that has created a greener planet. It’s an incredibly important substance. It makes up only about 0.04 percent of the atmosphere but is the foundation for photosynthesis and all life on earth. We’re also dependent on the oxygen released by plants.

Ingvar Ericson, Engineer

According to him, the waste company Sysav in Skåne has also indicated that planned capture won’t be possible without further financing.

Ericson is particularly critical of a planned project in Nybro – where he himself is involved in a project – where a private company wants to build a new combined heat and power plant with a capacity of 80 megawatts even though the municipality already has a functioning plant.

“They have not answered what they will do with all the district heating.”

READ ALSO: Green Bubble: 20 Billion from Taxpayers to Capture Carbon Dioxide

Unlike Stockholm Exergi, this project is not expected to receive state subsidies, as the support system is limited to existing facilities.

“How they plan to make it financially work is unclear.”

He also highlights logistical challenges. The CO2 must be transported to Karlshamn for further shipping to storage beneath the North Sea.

“In Nybro’s case, it’s about 200,000 tons per year. That would mean recurring trains with tank wagons. Such large amounts are not currently transported by rail in Sweden.”

“Carbon Dioxide is an Incredibly Important Substance”

Some say that CO2 is a vital gas and that such measures are counterproductive. How do you comment on that?

“I agree – it’s the CO2 that has created a greener planet. It’s an incredibly important substance. It only makes up about 0.04 percent of the atmosphere but is the basis for photosynthesis and all life on Earth. We’re also dependent on the oxygen that plants release.”

READ ALSO: Green Project Swallows Money – Turns to Taxpayers

But the crucial issue, he believes, is being clear about what this technology actually does.

“BECCS captures and stores CO2, and thereby slows the increase in emissions. But it’s wrong to say that it reduces the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

He hopes that the matter will now be discussed more openly.

“There has been too little discussion about what carbon capture really means. We need to elevate the debate to a factual level.”

READ ALSO: Stegra’s New Problems – Heat Shut Off After Unpaid Bills