At the beginning of the week, while the COP30 was starting in Belém (Brazil), almost 7,000 kilometers away, the European Parliament saved the file at the last minute by agreeing on its new goal to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040. The fact that the EU, one of the most combative blocs in each climate summit, did not officially establish that common goal until the last day, shows that the environmental fight is at a low point.
One of the tools Europe has to achieve that goal is carbon capture, use, and storage (CCUS). Trapping, storing, and sometimes reusing the polluting gases generated by economic activity. Brussels is strongly committed to this technology, which raises concerns among the greener spectrum, fearing that it will be used as an excuse to continue polluting. However, it is the most realistic option to minimize the environmental footprint of "hard to abate" industries such as cement, chemicals, or metallurgy. In Spain, these industries account for 33% of emissions, 10 percentage points higher than the rest of the world. The problem is that in Europe, capturing CO2 is still more expensive than emitting it.
This is the conclusion of the report "The Opportunity of Carbon Capture for the Spanish Economy" by BBVA Research, accessed by EL MUNDO. It estimates the average cost of capturing a ton of CO2 between 100 and 200 euros, depending on the type of installation and technology used, while the price of emitting it, within the European Emissions Trading System (ETS), is around 60 euros. The equation is simple: polluting remains cheaper than decontaminating.
"This cost gap excludes Spain and everyone else from the technology. The proof that it is still cheaper to emit is that none of the major emitters are making significant investments in CO2 capture. The thermometers are cement plants and the best canary in the mine, waste incineration plants," market sources highlight. Today, in almost all of Europe, announced projects are experimental, and industrial-scale plans are almost a pipe dream.
There are structural factors that hinder the scalability of this technology. For years, much of the European industry has benefited from a pass to pollute in the form of free emission allowances. Brussels designed them to prevent carbon leakage, where their factories would move out of the continent to avoid climate costs. According to the report, between 2016 and 2024, the Spanish industry emitted CO2 worth 17,514 million euros but paid less than 1,300 million for those emissions. The system itself saved those companies more than 16,200 million.
Europe is gradually phasing out this model. Although recently, pressure from countries like France has delayed the so-called ETS2 by a year, which will start charging for CO2 to sectors such as transportation or buildings, which were previously exempt. In parallel, the EU has just ordered the carbon border adjustment mechanism, a kind of climate tariff that will tax certain non-EU imports (steel, cement, fertilizers, etc.) to equalize the environmental bill that burdens the European industry compared to countries with looser regulations. "Until it lands, the first sectors that should invest in capture are thinking 'I already have enough ruin to start capturing CO2'," market sources point out.
"Every year, the profitability gap between capturing and paying for emitting carbon is decreasing," says Julián Cubero, chief economist of Climate Change Economics at BBVA Research. He points out that 2026 should be the year when the foundations are laid for the technology to take off: "Industrial companies will progressively pay more for emission rights, so the pressure to act will increase."
Charles Kirby, partner in the Sustainability area at EY Consulting, agrees that the current market reality "makes the economic viability of many projects difficult," but he foresees that the economic equation will change "significantly" in the coming years due to the gradual withdrawal of free allowances and the expected rise in carbon prices. "We will reach a tipping point where investing in capture will be economically more favorable than continuing to buy emission rights." That's why he urges companies to act proactively and not wait for that tipping point, a moment when "cost pressures and implementation deadlines could compromise operational viability."
Unlike other European countries, Spain does not have a specific roadmap for capture. References are scarce in the government's energy plan, framing it as a last resort technology. This hinders the take-off of projects - currently in the pilot phase - with long development cycles of eight to 10 years.
Why? "As a country that is not a producer of hydrocarbons like the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, or Norway, there is less potential opportunity for capture and an unjustified geological storage risk perception. Capture has traditionally been considered a substitute for emission mitigation, linked to the survival of fossil fuel use, something that can be avoided with appropriate incentives. For 'hard to abate' industries, there is no feasible and economical short-term alternative," analyzes Cubero.
Kirby also argues that capture should be understood as "part of a comprehensive decarbonization strategy, not as a justification to perpetuate the use of fossil fuels." He highlights its role in sectors where feasible alternatives do not exist, to "facilitate the transition, leveraging existing infrastructures while moving towards completely decarbonized systems."