Interview with Célia Sapart

As a scientist, how do you view the controversial debates around carbon capture and utilisation?

I believe part of the controversy stems from confusion between CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage), which involves storing CO2 underground, CCU (Carbon Capture and Utilisation), which takes a circular approach by reusing CO2, and CDR (Carbon Direct Removal), which refers to removing CO2 directly from the atmosphere. These approaches have different goals and impacts, yet CCU often suffers from the negative reputation of CCS, which is frequently perceived as a way to prolong the use of fossil fuels. A significant part of our work involves clarifying these terms, using IPCC definitions, to ensure that the real potential and limitations of these technologies are properly understood.

The public is mostly familiar with CO2 storage (CCS), but much less with carbon utilisation (CCU). Why does this approach deserve more attention?

In Europe, CCU is clearly aimed at "defossilising" transport and industry, particularly in sectors where renewable electricity can’t be used directly. It addresses the root of the problem: our reliance on fossil carbon. The process involves capturing CO2, whether from industrial sources or directly from the air, and converting it into essential chemicals, renewable fuels, or construction materials.

For transport sectors like aviation and maritime shipping, renewable fuels made from captured CO2 and green hydrogen are among the only viable solutions, alongside behavioural changes, to reduce their environmental footprint. In the chemical sector, fossil carbon is being replaced by CO2 to produce methanol, olefins, or renewable methane, all of which are building blocks for everyday products. In construction, CO2 can be stored permanently through mineralisation in various types of materials.

Is there a risk that these technologies could be used for greenwashing or accused of "techno-solutionism"?

CCU is less prone to greenwashing than CCS, because its primary objective is to replace fossil fuels, not to maintain a linear carbon economy. That said, to ensure these technologies deliver real impact, it’s crucial that CCU fuels truly substitute fossil fuels rather than simply adding to them. We also need to stay alert to overpromising. CCU technologies play a key role in defossilising the most CO2-intensive sectors, but no technology alone can meet climate targets if we don’t also make deep efforts to reduce emissions at the source — for example by embracing greater sobriety and efficiency.

We also need to be precise with terminology. In the United States, for instance, CCUS often refers to Enhanced Oil Recovery, where CO2 is injected into wells to extract more oil. This type of use doesn’t align with the European definition of CCU and certainly doesn’t have the same environmental impact.

As for the critique of techno-solutionism, it's essential to look at solutions as complementary. Nature-based solutions are crucial, especially for biodiversity and climate resilience, but they won’t be enough on their own. Technological approaches like CCU are necessary too, and ideally, we should combine technology, nature, and behavioural shifts in a way that reinforces all three rather than setting them against each other.

To what extent can CCU contribute to phasing out fossil fuels?

Current estimates suggest that CCU could account for at least 8% of the total greenhouse gas emissions reduction needed to achieve climate neutrality in Europe by 2050. Of course, CCU won’t replace the need for direct emissions cuts, but it is an essential technology to address the root cause of climate change by replacing fossil carbon wherever possible and managing residual emissions in the most polluting sectors. We are seeing clear progress in terms of regulatory recognition and funding across Europe, which is promising. 

Is this a sign of real political awareness of CO2 as a circular resource?

Absolutely. Over the past six years, political recognition of CCU in Europe has grown significantly. We now have set quotas for the future use of renewable fuels in the maritime and aviation sectors. CCU is also recognised within the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), where mineralising CO2 in construction materials allows it to be counted as "non-emitted."

The next step for the EU is to follow through. We need to reinforce these new rules with strong economic incentives to move away from fossil energy, broader sustainability mandates (such as encouraging the chemical sector to defossilise), and a much more systematic application of the polluter-pays principle to make CCU-based products more competitive.
The Clean Industry Pact, launched in February 2024, offers a great opportunity to build on this momentum. Such incentives will help existing CCU projects to scale up and expand their impact.