Elevating Carbon Management: Reimagining Climate Policy in a Politicized Energy Landscape

The politicization of net-zero goals and renewable energy has led to entrenched opposition in some quarters—so much so that in certain states, wind and solar expansions face institutional pushback. Yet one pathway endorsed by the IPCC remains essential: carbon management.

In this piece, we explicitly focus on carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) and technological carbon dioxide removal (CDR), particularly direct air capture (DAC) and bioenergy with CCS (BECCS). These technologies provide synergy between emissions reductions and carbon removal, both critical for reaching net-zero.

At first blush, these approaches might seem to compete with renewables for limited resources and political will. However, in today’s polarized climate, carbon management may be one of the few bridges that brings divided stakeholders together—potentially preserving and even accelerating progress for wind, solar, and other zero-carbon resources.

A Broader Tent: Why It Matters

A core question arises: if policymakers or industry allocate funding for CCUS, does that siphon off dollars and momentum from renewables? Some climate advocates worry that embracing carbon management defers a full pivot to wind, solar, and electrification.

Yet, in our time shaping climate policy at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), we found that an exclusive “renewables only” stance often derails legislation that could boost clean energy. Projects that include carbon management can rally broader political support, advancing key decarbonization measures that include renewables.

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) illustrate this dynamic. Without language supporting CCUS demonstrations, it’s unlikely we would have seen bipartisan enthusiasm or moderate Democrats lining up behind larger clean energy initiatives. Faced with the stark political reality, climate advocates often conclude that 50% of what you want can be far better than 0%.

The Renewables + Carbon Management Portfolio

Some might contend that a partial shift toward carbon management undermines renewables. But in fact, carbon management can help renewables in at least three ways:

1. Build Momentum. Renewables show steep learning curves. In a virtuous cycle, more deployment leads to lower costs. In contrast, with fewer subsidies, the learning rates and subsequent costs improve more modestly. Hence, the lion’s share of subsidies and attention for renewables continues to yield significant returns, even if CCUS gains incremental support.
2. Abate Tough Sectors. CCUS is critical for certain hard-to-abate sectors where renewables can’t simply replace fossil fuels (e.g., cement production).
3. Draw Bipartisan Support. By supporting CCUS, we create political pathways that allow renewables to be part of the legislative package, whereas standalone renewable-focused bills might stall.

Shifting Opposition from ‘Stop CCS’ to ‘Implement It Right’

A cautionary note: carbon management can function as a robust climate solution or fail to reduce emissions at all. To maximize climate benefits, we need strong policy guardrails. This means requiring rigorous monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) frameworks to ensure CO2 storage permanence. It also means aligning carbon management projects with broader goals of transitioning fully from unabated fossil fuels, providing tangible community benefits, and promoting equitable economic development. Without these guardrails, carbon management risks enabling more “business as usual” fossil activity.

We also see significant opportunities to expand and refine policy tools like the 45Q tax credit. Early expansions of 45Q have improved short-term project economics, but stable, predictable extensions remain critical to sustain long-term investor confidence. Similarly, engaging in DOE’s appropriations process and regulatory efforts can shape how carbon management projects are sited, operated, and monitored—ensuring climate alignment and local environmental stewardship.

Looking Ahead: A Policy Decision-Making Framework

In a few days, we’ll release a Policy Decision-Making Framework and Rubric for 21st-Century Carbon Management. This framework highlights effective state-level innovations, such as California’s Climate Crisis Act (AB 1279) and Massachusetts’ Clean Energy Grid Act (S.2967). The framework provides clear criteria to distinguish greenwashing from genuine climate solutions and ensures alignment with community needs

Our framework is based on the premise that carbon management must not become an excuse to stall renewables deployment, but rather a tool to push net-zero progress further, faster. Energy sector stakeholders—from policymakers and NGOs to local community groups—need systematic ways to assess whether a given CCUS or DAC project aligns with broader climate objectives.

Rewriting the Narrative

Endorsing carbon management need not dilute a renewables-focused agenda. But given today’s political fragmentation around net-zero and clean energy, carbon management can open doors that would otherwise stay shut. Fundamentally, a de-fossilized future hinges on how we manage the near- and medium-term emissions that occur before renewables dominate the grid. We can either act now to shape successful carbon management programs—or stand by while industry and other interests shape them without considering climate or community.

In short, carbon management and renewables can—and must—coexist. While recent political shifts have complicated the bipartisan landscape, well-designed carbon management strategies can still garner broad coalitions that might otherwise resist renewables-only policies—enabling pragmatic progress even in challenging political environments.