The energy transition can be defined by IRENA as “the transformation of the global energy sector from fossil-based to zero-carbon sources by the second half of this century.” This energy transition, a concept strongly encouraged to nations that capitalize on the continuous use of fossil fuels, has found itself under the spotlight as countries scramble to find effective green alternatives while maintaining a high level of productivity. Despite the ever growing influence of environmentalism, the goal to remain under the 1.5℃ cap, as outlined in the Paris Agreement, seems to have gotten further out of reach. The cause of the lack of improvement is without a doubt, the simultaneous development and reliance on both fossil fuels and green energy, seen as a dichotomous energy crisis. This paradox in energy consumption is best represented in Norway, a country that dominates the energy stage, garnering relational power with a 92 percent domestic reliance on hydropower while kickstarting newfound CO2 waste management in Carbon Capture Storage (CCS). Carbon Capture is the process of liquifying CO2 collected from the output of manufacturing and industrial companies to be transported underground in order to decrease the rate of greenhouse gas emissions being released into the atmosphere. While Norway is universally renowned for its reputation as a climate frontrunner, it gained the majority of its affluence by profiting from the oil reservoirs off its western coast and the Arctic circle, demonstrating that the influence of oil tempts even the most environmentally conscious countries.
This resistance to the green energy transition has raised concerns about whether the emission management measures like CCS are genuine attempts at climate action or methods to calm the rising advocacy for climate mitigation while continuing oil production. This poses the question: Do CCS projects reflect real attempts for climate action, or are they a strategic cover by the state and multinational organizations for more oil production?
With the climate crisis becoming increasingly urgent and the effects of a warming planet becoming more visible, the United Nations has emphasized sustainable energy security as a global challenge where “no one gets left behind.” Fossil fuels currently account for 75 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and roughly 90 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. Consequently, as climate change is a collective issue, joint cooperation is required to effectively mitigate its impacts. The political challenge lies in establishing sustainable energy frameworks, which requires limiting the factors that threaten the environmental well-being. Rather than forcing an immediate break from oil, CCS reduces atmospheric harm and creates space for a smoother, less devastating energy transition. Jarad Daniels, the CEO of the Global CCS Institute, defends and advocates for the universal use of CCS, stating, “without CCS, the shared global climate goals are practically impossible,” demonstrating the urgency of global warming. While CCS can represent a huge environmental opportunity, it can also present itself as an economic liability. It can be argued that the heavy reliance on oil industries complicates the energy transition since production accounts for 28 percent of the nation’s GDP and undermines much of its economic development.
Furthermore, the risk of renewable energy market instability and high capital costs supports the argument that energy security often outweighs the urgency of sustainability, making continued reliance on fossil fuels a calculated risk for their perceived benefits. However, nonprofit organizations have raised concerns about CCS as a long-term climate solution, arguing that it enables governments and oil industries’ to maintain fossil fuel production under the guise of pursuing carbon neutrality, in other words, Greenwashing. While major oil-exporting nations claim that revenues from fossil fuels are essential for funding renewable energy transitions, limited transparency raises doubts about the sincerity and accountability of these efforts.
Regardless of how CCS is used, the growing severity of climate change and the slow pace of regulatory action against multinational corporations highlight the desperation driving its implementation. It can be agreed upon that a complete transition cannot happen overnight; however, continued investment in both renewables and fossil fuels risks addressing climate change with only superficial solutions. In order to fully reap the benefits of CCS, investment in renewables must overcome fossil fuel production, or else it will be rendered useless at achieving climate goals. While investment in CCS may come with risks, we find ourselves in a situation where we no longer have the option to consider another alternative and should implement CCS in order to inhibit constant reliance on the safety net of oil.
“Energy Transition Outlook, International Renewable Energy Agency”, 16 June 2022
“The Smoke and Mirrors of Norway’s Climate Action.” Green European Journal,
Accessed 6 Aug. 2024.
“UNSDG | 2030 Agenda - Universal Values.” Universal Values Principle Two: Leave No One Behind, United Nations,Accessed 12 Oct. 2024.
“Why is exploitation of Arctic offshore oil and natural gas resources ongoing? A multi-level
perspective on the cases of Norway and Russia.” Polar Journal, 13 May 2020,
“Why Carbon Capture and Storage Is Not a Real Climate Solution.” David Suzuki
Foundation, 15 Mar. 2023,