Shah-Carbon capture-Oped thumbnail-Feb-2024-2024-Op 2

Technology and innovation are emerging dimensions of climate discourse in contemporary times. Climate technologies  are rapidly becoming instrumental in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapting to the detrimental impacts of climate change. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) stipulates in Article 4 that all parties shall ‘promote and cooperate in the development, application and diffusion, including transfer of, technologies…that control, reduce or prevent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.’ In this regard, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology has the potential to expedite endeavours towards climate change mitigation in environmentally vulnerable countries.  

CCS technology undertakes decarbonisation by capturing carbon emissions released from large-scale fossil-based energy and industry sources provided geological storage is available. The carbon is, subsequently, transported via a network of pipelines for storage underneath the earth. Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage (CCUS) is an extension of CCS, involving the recycling of carbon back into economic activity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and COP28 have also endorsed CCS technology, affirming that decarbonisation efforts can be complemented by mitigation strategies to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. CCS technology has been commercially deployed by approximately 265 projects globally, with around 40 currently in operation. The United States leads the global race in CCS projects, followed by the United Kingdom, Australia, and Norway.

As is often observed, Pakistan is the 8th most vulnerable country to climate change. The devastating floods of 2022 resulted in total loss and damage amounting to approximately PKR 3.3 trillion and PKR 3.2 trillion, respectively. Furthermore, the country’s carbon emissions stand at approximately 234.75 million tonnes. Under the Paris Agreement, Pakistan has pledged to reduce its emissions by half by 2030. Therefore, it is crucial to contextualise the discourse on CCS technology within the national framework and assess its domestic viability.

When it comes to Pakistan, the development of CCS technology is not a convenient undertaking as it comes with certain challenges. First and foremost, this technology continues to be highly costly owing to design complexities coupled with technological and infrastructural requirements. The CCS cost ranges from USD 15 to 130  per metric ton of carbon dioxide. Although the National Climate Change Policy (NCCP) calls for its indigenous development, Pakistan may not be in a fiscally feasible position to undertake CCS projects given its economic straits. In addition, some CCS facilities have been found to be susceptible to underground carbon leakages which could contaminate groundwater and cause other environmental risks.

At present, Pakistan would be well-advised to focus more on adaptation technologies as its share in global emissions is less than 1% while being at the forefront of climate-related threats. Hence, innovations in adaptation domain ought to be prioritised more than those in mitigation. Nonetheless, the feasibility of CCS technology could be possible in future once the country acquires adequate fiscal space to fund such costly projects. The country would also take substantial time to acquire technical expertise and advanced environmental understanding for the establishment of regulatory frameworks in this domain. In the meanwhile, the government could kickstart Research and Development (R&D) in this sector. This would allow the relevant stakeholders to develop technical know-how as well as contextual understanding vis-Ă¡-vis CCS technology. For now, Pakistan should focus more on the design, development and operationalisation of adaptation technologies such as efforts for rainwater harvesting and drip irrigation to enhance water efficiency; developing climate-resilient crops and precision agriculture technologies for sustainable farming; expanding mangrove reforestation and deploying advanced early warning systems for coastal and flood protection; promoting green infrastructure and climate-resilient housing in urban areas; adopting solar energy solutions like solar water heaters and solar pumps; engaging in community-based adaptation projects; and establishing climate-resilient policies and financing mechanisms to support adaptation technologies. Collaboration with the private sector in these areas could also help rejuvenate economic activity, entailing business opportunities and employment prospects for the local population. Pakistan’s mitigation commitments under the Paris Agreement could be materialised through a phased transition to renewable energy, rather than undertaking costly CCS ventures in an economically strained position.

To conclude, the role of climate technologies, in general, and CCS technology, in particular, in addressing environmental issues cannot be overlooked. However, the development of any technology should be based on the contextual and environmental realities of a particular country. Since Pakistan reels from multifaceted environmental threats while contributing quite marginally to global emissions, it ought to focus more on adaptation technologies rather than mitigation ones.

Shah Muhammad is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS) in Islamabad, Pakistan. He can be reached at [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »