As international cooperation to mitigate climate change gathers pace, most European nations have adopted strategies to decarbonize their economies. It is a signal that these countries recognize the need to reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Renewable energy sources are an important tool for doing so. Many governments have adopted policies to dramatically increase the share of these resources in their national energy mix, in addition to efforts to improve energy efficiency across numerous sectors, including industry, construction, and housing.

It has become clear that renewables alone will not enable the industrial sector to achieve its decarbonization goals. A large share of carbon dioxide emissions are released by hard-to-abate industries that are unlikely to become electrified or during production processes in which currently no carbon-free alternative exists.

Technologies for carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture and utilization (CCU), as well as hydrogen (H2), are currently being explored as the most promising solutions to the challenges described above. But which method is preferable? Can they be evaluated separately? Substantial differences in public perceptions of each option may prove to be a significant barrier to reaching net-zero CO2 emissions by mid-century.

Carbon Technologies: A Study in Contrasts

While a variety of technologies for the capture of carbon dioxide emissions and their storage (CCS) in geological formations have been proposed, developed, and deployed, the volumes of CO2 produced in industrial processes significantly outstrip the capacity of existing and emerging facilities.

Yet the technical and economic feasibility of many of these technologies means that they should have a place in present and future mitigation efforts. Indeed, CCS is being actively promoted in countries like Norway and the UK.

But CCS implementation has stalled in some of Europe’s biggest economies, such as Germany and Poland. Why? One significant reason has been media-savvy protests led by environmental action groups that have forced pilot CCS projects to be discontinued, even as some of them near their launch dates.

The relative novelty of these technologies means that it is still not clear to what extent the fears at the center of protests are grounded. Yet it is often the case that an insufficient awareness of both the pros and cons of novel technologies can make assumed threats seem more important than any advantages. Potential harm and expected losses are perceived psychologically as more severe than the possible gains from adopting these technologies, even if there are equivalent risks and rewards.

One can see these dynamics at play in two recent CSS efforts. In one case, Schwarze Pumpe CCS—a German project that was meant to be one of the world’s first demonstrations of a technology “that could help save the planet from global warming”—ran into significant problems. The end result of the project was financial losses for its Swedish investor and the unhappy result of CO2 being “pumped directly into the atmosphere.” A similar CCS project undertaken in the Polish city of Bełchatów and promoted by that country’s Polska Grupa Energetyczna (PGE Group) was also terminated before it could begin its operations.

Financial concerns were significant hurdles in both cases. But societal opposition to the very idea of storing carbon dioxide underground in the relative vicinity of residential areas also became an extremely persuasive argument for local politicians. It was these officials who put pressure on the companies, which was a factor in their decisions not to proceed.

The narrative framing of CCS technologies played a large role in creating opposition to these projects. In both Germany and Poland, carbon dioxide is portrayed (and perceived) as a harmful greenhouse gas that must be extracted from the atmosphere or industrial processes and locked away. The uncertainties and high costs attached to the process lead to a conclusion that any sequestration of CO2 should preferably be accomplished far from where people live.

This sentiment is in marked contrast to carbon capture and utilization (CCU) technologies, which are generally depicted in the more optimistic light of a so-called ‘benefit perception’ framing. Businesses promoting CCU technologies tend to portray CO2 as a much-needed resource for renewable carbon in the chemical industry, medical industry, plastics industry and more—and not as a “danger” or a “hazard.” As a result, although both CCS and CCU technologies deal with the same substance, the societal and economic perspectives attached to the development of each of them differ significantly.

Is Hydrogen Different?

In light of the complexities and uncertainties surrounding CCU and CCS, hydrogen is often portrayed as a more viable solution to extend the carbon budget. So-called “green hydrogen,” which is generated by using renewable energy, provides a completely “clean” fuel and feedstock that does not emit any CO2 when it is burned. These qualities are why “green hydrogen” is often perceived more favorably than CCS or CCU solutions in Europe.

For instance, following Germany’s adoption of a National Hydrogen Strategy in 2020, that nation’s most carbon intensive sectors (steelmaking, aviation, maritime transport, etc.) seem keen to harness hydrogen to fast track their decarbonization efforts. This has led to active investments in the development and promotion of hydrogen applications.

Similarly, an increasing number of countries have developed their own hydrogen strategies in anticipation that this new sector will not only help to decarbonize their economies, but also create new jobs and thus improve their wellbeing.

So will hydrogen be treated differently than carbon? One recent case in the United Kingdom offers evidence that hydrogen projects may meet with similar opposition. The Whitby Hydrogen Village would be the UK’s first hydrogen-heated settlement, but the planning for the effort elicited fierce opposition last year.

Converting existing natural gas infrastructure to hydrogen in Whitby appears to be both technically and economically feasible, yet the project has rapidly become a PR disaster. Local groups have expressed significant concerns about both costs and potential hazards of the project. Many affected citizens in Whitby also feel that they are being forced to participate in an experiment that could leave them stranded with obsolete appliances and burdened by higher costs in the long term. Concerns that hydrogen might prove to be more dangerous than natural gas have also been raised, with one report produced for the UK government reporting a four-fold increase in the risk of explosive events.

The Whitby project remains under consideration. But community opposition to the effort remains strong, and the future of Britain’s first hydrogen-heated residential area is now decidedly uncertain.

The Importance of Framing

Like CCU and CCS technologies, hydrogen is often promoted as a panacea. Yet its future looks far more controversial than one might anticipate. Assessments of the transition that envision coupling conventional hydrogen production from fossil fuels with either CCS or CCU technologies (so-called “blue” and “turquoise” hydrogen) as a first step towards a low-carbon hydrogen economy only muddy the waters. In fact, while these distinct technical approaches to decarbonization are often portrayed as alternatives to each other (or even substitutes), they happen to be intertwined elements of the larger process of transition.

One thing does seem clear: without public acceptance, none of these technologies is likely to be implemented easily. And that lack of sufficient societal support will make reaching net-zero CO2 emissions difficult, if not impossible. This is why we need a new depoliticized debate based on socio-economic scientific assessments rather than one dominated by mobilized fears.