"If the Federal Council is now considering abolishing the program — or at least withdrawing the federal contribution — it is mainly because of the windfall effects it generates," explains Philippe Thalmann, professor of environmental economics at EPFL.
"Today, 70% of our results come from abroad, while 70% of our investments are made in our historic service territory in Switzerland," says Cédric Christmann, Chief Executive Officer of Primeo Energie.
Will we really be able to "store" as much carbon dioxide as hoped?
Published in Nature, a study shows that once technical, social and environmental risks are taken into account, the global reserves available for geological carbon storage appear much more limited than most estimates had suggested.
On a global scale, according to some estimates — notably those of the IPCC — the world will have to, by 2050, remove between 5 and 16 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year.
At the beginning of summer, the small island town of Øygarden, in the south of the fjord country, received a surprise visit from Albert Rösti. The Federal Councillor, in charge of DETEC (Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications), went there to discover "Northern Lights", an installation made up of twelve imposing vertical tanks. These were designed to receive carbon dioxide from all over Europe, with a clear objective: to bury it beneath the seabed, in a 2,600-meter-deep well. Concretely, the captured carbon is first liquefied, then shipped by boat. Once transferred into one of the giant tanks, it is then transported by pipeline to its offshore storage site, located 110 kilometres away.
As with an earlier experiment carried out in Iceland, the Swiss politician left Norway with an agreement authorizing the export and storage of Swiss CO₂ on Norwegian soil, as well as its trade once removed from the atmosphere — the so‑called "negative emissions." Given the limited potential for storage within its own borders, Switzerland has chosen as a strategy to get rid of its carbon abroad. "CO₂ storage will also be important for Switzerland on the path to net‑zero. This technology complements our existing instruments for decarbonization," reads the Confederation's website. In the same logic, a similar agreement was signed at the start of the school year with Denmark.
Naturally, deep geological storage is not the only conceivable solution. Ambitious policies of reforestation or soil regeneration would, for example, mitigate part of the problem in a more natural and ecological way. But these approaches would not be sufficient on their own: according to current models, capture and storage of CO₂ remain indispensable, and at large scale, since we are talking about several billion tonnes to be removed by 2050.
And what if these models have overestimated the planet’s real storage capacities? That is the issue raised by recent research on this subject. Published in "Nature", a study shows that once technical, social and environmental risks are taken into account, the global reserves available for geological carbon storage appear much more limited than most estimates suggested.
Limited geological storage: Rather than considering the gross geological capacity as fully exploitable, the study goes further by evaluating potential storage sites according to multiple risk and feasibility criteria. Sites exposed to seismic risks or groundwater contamination, those located near densely populated areas or areas of high ecological value (protected areas, Arctic and Antarctic regions), as well as sedimentary basins presenting technical constraints are thus excluded — or strongly limited: too shallow to guarantee permanent storage, too deep to remain accessible, or located in deep offshore waters. Political feasibility is also taken into account, as maritime zones beyond national jurisdictions or disputed territories cannot be considered viable long‑term storage sites.
This analysis therefore defines a "prudential" CO₂ storage capacity. Estimated at 1,460 gigatonnes, it is far lower than more conventional projections. In 2005, the special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on carbon capture and storage indeed assessed the "technical potential" at about 2,000 gigatonnes. Over the past two decades, estimates have even soared, ranging from 10,000 to 40,000 gigatonnes according to some sources.
a The reduction of the overall storage potential after applying each subsequent exclusion layer. The sensitivities assessed form the lower and upper values of each uncertainty bar around the central estimate. b The difference in total global potential before (left) and after (right) the application of all exclusion layers, yielding the assessed planetary limit, including the central estimate and sensitivity cases. c The complete technical potential and the final potential assessed in the central estimate by IPCC region. d + e Our analysis is spatially explicit and globally consistent, which allows national‑level assessments of prudent storage potential in offshore basins ( d ) and onshore basins ( e ). f Total storage before and after applying precautionary exclusion layers is heterogeneous across countries depending on the total loss in storage magnitude (light to dark colours) and the percentage of technical potential lost (blue represents a high absolute loss but a low percentage loss, red represents a high percentage loss but a low absolute loss, and purple represents a high loss along both axes). Sources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, ICI, Geonames.org and other contributors.
2️⃣
Real climate impact: By reducing the possibilities for geological carbon storage to some 1,460 gigatonnes of CO₂, the study highlights a major fact: this capacity would only limit warming by about 0.7 °C (between 0.6 and 1.2 °C).
This potential would be even lower if part of this capacity were used to prolong the use of fossil fuels, or if residual CO₂ emissions and other persistent gases continued to persist over the long term. Under a more cautious assumption, the maximum effect would thus fall to 0.4 °C (0.35–0.7 °C) — an estimate probably too optimistic given the expected persistence of unavoidable industrial and agricultural emissions.
These results diverge radically from older scenarios, which projected gains of up to 5 or 6 °C by considering only technical capacity. They therefore confirm that geological storage can only be a limited contribution to combating warming, and must remain a complement to rapid and massive emissions reductions, rather than a substitute solution.
3️⃣
An unsustainable long‑term scenario: According to the scientists, achieving carbon neutrality around 2050–2055 and limiting warming to 1.5 °C would require storing nearly 8.7 gigatonnes of CO₂ per year — far more than current volumes.
But this already colossal challenge does not end there. The study extends the reflection beyond 2050: storage would need to continue, or even intensify, to offset residual emissions and progressively push temperatures down.
By 2100, scenarios compatible with 1.5 °C or 2 °C could still require the removal of about 15 GtCO₂/yr. Yet, "analysis of carbon storage trends at the end of the century across different scenarios shows that almost all would exceed the storage capacity available in basins with existing oil and gas infrastructure by 2125, and would cross the planetary geological storage limit before 2200."
4️⃣
Geographical inequalities: While the scale of the challenge is indeed global, the "prudential" storage capacities vary greatly from region to region. A geographical inequality that could prove problematic in the long term. Historically high‑emitting and wealthy nations such as the United States, Canada or Russia still have considerable potential, whereas Europe is much more constrained.
Oil‑producing countries of the Arabian Peninsula, as well as other states with strong fossil industries (United States, Australia, Canada), are also well placed. But they will need to be incentivized to become net "injectors" rather than mere extractors of carbon, in line with the polluter‑pays principle.
As for developing countries, such as Brazil, Indonesia or several African states, they have significant theoretical capacities, but their historical contribution to emissions remains small. They may therefore hesitate to exploit these resources without fair compensation mechanisms.
a Onshore sedimentary basins (brown) and offshore basins (blue), including national land and maritime boundaries (i.e. EEZs). Basin colours vary according to technical carbon storage potential (lighter) and the assessed prudent carbon storage potential (darker). b The North American continent, including all exclusion layers. The prudent limit is estimated by taking into account the total technical storage potential, removing all precautionary exclusion layers and summing the available carbon storage of the remaining basins (yellow dotted and light blue areas). Sources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org and other contributors.
5️⃣
Carbon transfer: As in the Swiss strategy, experts point out that carbon could be the subject of massive transfers between regions. A dynamic that carries "increased risks of leakage during transport — whether by ships or pipelines — and that raises questions of distributive justice and equity."
Even if governed by equitable policies, the rise of carbon transfer and storage could generate colossal financial flows, amounting to billions or even trillions of dollars per year. This could further exacerbate global inequalities. The study's authors add, however, that "there are already opportunities today to develop carbon removal and storage based on principles of equity, responsibility and respective capacities."
"The application of our precautionary planetary limit framework demonstrates that maintaining current climate policies will not only substantially exceed the 1.5 °C limit set by the Paris Agreement, but could also make a return to that threshold impossible thereafter," write the study's authors. They call on states to "consider geological carbon storage as a scarce resource, to be deployed strategically to maximize climate benefits, rather than as an unlimited resource."
An appeal that echoes a recent position paper by Adèle Thorens Goumaz: "Our country should have the political courage to reduce a larger share of its emissions at the source. This is an essential principle of our waste management: avoid producing them as much as possible before looking for a way to treat them," reminds the former National Councillor and Councillor of States, now a UAS professor at HEIG‑VD.
This article has been automatically translated using AI. If you notice any errors, please don't hesitate to contact us.
"If the Federal Council is now considering abolishing the program — or at least withdrawing the federal contribution — it is mainly because of the windfall effects it generates," explains Philippe Thalmann, professor of environmental economics at EPFL.
"Today, 70% of our results come from abroad, while 70% of our investments are made in our historic service territory in Switzerland," says Cédric Christmann, Chief Executive Officer of Primeo Energie.
