Here I examine flue gas capture of CO2 along with geologic sequestration. While CCS could reasonably be categorized as a form of emissions reduction rather than a climate intervention, I present it as the latter because the capture step is so similar to what would be required for direct air capture, and the sequestration step is identical. I first clarify that the real value in BECCS is the carbon capture, not the inefficient bio energy production. After delving into the mechanics and economics of the CCS process, I review the status of large CCS facilities around the world, noting that we are scaling this technology at a small fraction of the pace required. While there is a small market for carbon use in products, the vast majority of what we might extract needs to be pumped underground in secure storage sites. As there is no market value in such carbon sequestration, this technology will not begin to scale substantially until government policy mandates or incents it via regulation or carbon charges.

For the United States, which already bears costs from human-caused climate change, taking action to address the crisis is cheaper than doing nothing. Yet, the Trump administration not only pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement but banded together with Russia and Saudi Arabia to undermine progress in international climate talks. The administration attempted to derail the prudent efforts by state governments and the nonfossil-fuel private sector to adapt to the changing economic opportunities in response to the climate crisis. It curbed states’ rights, e.g., blocking California’s efforts to tighten vehicle fuel-efficiency standards in line with global demand. It used regulatory powers to block the financial sector’s decision not to fund Arctic drilling and pension-fund managers’ growing interest in considering environmental, social and governance issues that affect their investment returns. The United States can still right its course on climate action. In December 2020, Congress enacted legislation to fund clean energy investments and to mandate cuts in hydrofluorocarbons, a potent greenhouse gas, for which US manufacturers are leaders for substitute products. While ambitious climate legislation faces tremendous hurdles in Congress, these narrower provisions, framed as strategies to support American jobs and leadership in manufacturing, were able to win bipartisan support.