Recently, Kern County approved California’s first major carbon capture and storage (CCS) facility, the Carbon Terra Vault I, spearheaded by California Resources Corp. (CRC). While the project aims to sequester over a million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, this initiative has been met with significant opposition from environmentalists and community members alike, who argue that CCS technology is a False Solution in the fight against climate change.
CCS technology captures carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from industrial sources like power plants before they reach the atmosphere. The captured CO₂ is then injected deep underground for long-term storage. In theory, this sounds beneficial: capturing CO₂ before it can contribute to global warming seems like a step toward a cleaner future. However, CCS is highly energy-intensive and costly, and the risks associated with storing CO₂ underground are considerable.
In Kern County, CRC’s Carbon Terra Vault project seeks to store CO₂ at its Elk Hills oil field, a site where oil and gas extraction has long impacted the environment. CRC claims the project will reduce emissions by storing millions of metric tons of CO₂, but critics argue that this merely diverts attention from Better Solutions that could be implemented sooner and with far less environmental risk.
One of the major concerns with CCS is the potential for CO₂ leaks. CO₂ is an odorless, colorless gas that can displace oxygen, posing severe health risks if accidentally released near communities. In a notorious incident in Satartia, Mississippi, a CO₂ pipeline rupture left dozens hospitalized, causing respiratory issues and evacuations. Similar incidents could endanger Kern County residents, many of whom already live with high pollution levels due to the region’s extensive oil and gas operations .
While CCS is marketed as an innovative climate solution, many argue that it simply props up the fossil fuel industry. CCS does not eliminate emissions at their source; instead, it allows continued extraction and burning of fossil fuels, effectively extending the life of industries responsible for significant carbon pollution . By permitting this project, Kern County risks allowing the oil industry to continue business as usual, claiming carbon reduction benefits while continuing to extract and burn fossil fuels.
This aligns with the criticism that CCS diverts investments from Better Solutions like renewable energy, which directly addresses the root causes of climate change rather than dealing with the consequences of carbon pollution after the fact. As Victoria Bogdan Tejeda of the Center for Biological Diversity aptly pointed out, “Carbon capture is a dangerous, wildly expensive failure…California should be investing in the transition to true renewable energy” .
Kern County, California’s primary oil-producing region, is home to communities that have long suffered from environmental degradation. The decision to locate this project in Kern County raises significant environmental justice issues. Residents in this area, already disproportionately affected by pollution, may now face additional risks tied to CCS infrastructure.
The project also limits future land use in the area around the Elk Hills field, restricting residential and commercial developments. Essentially, this project is asking Kern County residents to bear the health and safety risks of a technology that primarily benefits the fossil fuel industry, reinforcing the disparity between those who profit from fossil fuels and those who live with its consequences.
True progress in combating climate change requires direct emission reduction strategies rather than costly, risky technologies that prolong our dependency on fossil fuels. Rather than investing in CCS, Kern County could prioritize renewable energy solutions like solar, wind, and geothermal projects. These Better Solutions not only provide clean energy but also create sustainable jobs and improve local air quality, directly addressing the environmental and economic needs of the region.
While CCS may appear to address climate goals on the surface, the Kern County Carbon Storage Project exemplifies the pitfalls of relying on this technology. It represents a False Solution that does not fully address the environmental and health risks to local communities or advance genuine decarbonization efforts. Instead, it enables fossil fuel companies to continue polluting practices while claiming to be “green.”
Kern County deserves real climate solutions that prioritize community well-being and environmental health. By investing in renewable energy and sustainable infrastructure, we can protect both the environment and public health, paving the way for a genuinely sustainable future.
10/27/2024 – This article has been written by the FalseSolutions.Org team
References
1. Fine, H. “CRC Carbon Storage Project Gets Approval from Kern County.” *Los Angeles Business Journal*. October 25, 2024.
2. Kempe, Y. “California’s First Carbon Capture and Storage Facility Gets Local Approval.” *Smart Cities Dive*. October 24, 2024.
3. Yeager, J. “Kern County Greenlights Plan to Build the State’s First Carbon Storage and Removal Facility.” *KVPR*. October 22, 2024.
4. Briscoe, T. “California’s First Carbon Capture Project Gets OK from Kern County.” *Los Angeles Times*. October 22, 2024.
