Equinor, long viewed as a global leader in carbon capture and storage (CCS), is slowing its near-term investment plans. The company said market conditions are not yet strong enough to support new large-scale CCS commitments, even though it has decades of technical expertise in the field.
As per reports, during its latest earnings call, CEO Anders Opedal acknowledged that CCS demand is developing more slowly than expected. As a result, Equinor will wait before approving new projects. The company remains willing to invest, but only when it sees clear customer demand, stable policy frameworks, and commercially viable contracts that can deliver solid returns.
In short, the technology is ready. The market signals are not.
Equinor Shifts Focus From Carbon Capture to Core Oil and Gas Returns
The reassessment is now visible in the company’s capital allocation plans. Equinor confirmed it will reduce capital expenditure by about $4 billion across 2026 and 2027 in its latest earnings report. Most of the reductions will affect its low-carbon solutions and power segment, which includes CCS, hydrogen, and ammonia.
At the same time, the company is sharpening its focus on profitability and cash flow. It plans to further develop the Norwegian Continental Shelf, pursue targeted growth in international oil and gas, and build an integrated power business.
- Equinor also aims to reduce operating costs by 10% in 2026 and deliver around 3% oil and gas production growth that year.
- For 2026 and 2027, it is targeting a return on average capital employed of roughly 13%.
However, the company’s financial performance has been solid. It reported 6% production growth in the fourth quarter and 3.4% growth for the full year. Portfolio “high-grading” and cost discipline remain central to its strategy. In this context, projects must compete for capital based on returns and risk. At present, large-scale CCS expansion does not yet meet those thresholds.

Low-Carbon Growth and Net-Zero Path
In its sustainability report, the company revealed that it has plans to keep investing in strong upstream projects while cutting emissions. It will prioritize existing infrastructure and factor carbon intensity into every portfolio decision. By producing cost-efficient barrels with lower emissions, Equinor aims to protect long-term value and maintain its license to operate responsibly.
At the same time, the company is investing in the energy transition. It is building renewable power, expanding low-carbon solutions, and applying its offshore engineering and subsurface expertise beyond oil and gas.
- It targets10–12 GW of installed renewable capacity by 2030 and aims for 30–50 million tonnes of CO₂ transport and storage capacity by 2035.
- It also plans to reach net zero across Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions by 2050, with a 50% cut in operated emissions by 2030 from 2015 levels.

CCS remains central to these efforts. Equinor has safely stored millions of tonnes of CO₂ offshore Norway and continues developing transport networks connecting European industry to North Sea storage sites. Scaling CCS further will depend on stable policies, strong government support, and clear industrial demand.

Norway’s Storage Potential Remains Strong
Equinor has spent more than 20 years developing CCS capabilities and has participated in over 40 research projects. Norway’s offshore geology provides a natural advantage. The seabed beneath the North Sea is considered highly suitable for long-term CO₂ storage and could potentially hold the equivalent of 1,000 years of Norway’s emissions.
Technically, the country is well-positioned to serve as a major European CO₂ storage hub. However, geology alone does not guarantee investment. Storage capacity must match real and committed capture volumes. Without enough industrial CO₂ flows secured under contract, storage sites cannot operate at scale.
Carbon Capture and Storage: A Growing Market With Real Barriers
As per Fortune Business Insights, the global carbon capture and sequestration market is still projected to expand. In 2025, the market was valued at around $4.51 billion. It is expected to approach $20 billion by 2034, reflecting strong long-term growth projections. North America currently leads the sector, supported by government incentives and operational CCS facilities.

CCS technology captures carbon dioxide from industrial sources or power plants, transports it by pipeline or ship, and stores it deep underground in geological formations. Storage often takes place in saline aquifers or depleted oil and gas reservoirs. In some cases, CO₂ is used for enhanced oil recovery, increasing oil production while storing emissions underground.
Despite this momentum, the industry faces clear challenges. CCS infrastructure requires high upfront capital. Projects involve complex regulation, long development timelines, and cross-border coordination. Most importantly, they require dependable revenue streams backed by firm customer commitments.
Equinor’s decision reflects these economic realities.
Decarbonization Delays Weaken Near-Term CCS Demand
The company emphasized that one of the biggest challenges is changing customer timelines. Just a few years ago, many industrial buyers of natural gas were actively exploring hydrogen supply and CO₂ transport and storage services. Decarbonization plans appeared urgent.
Today, that urgency has softened. Many of those same customers continue to buy gas, but they have pushed major emissions reduction commitments further into the future. Instead of focusing on projects before 2030, companies are now extending targets beyond that date.
This shift has weakened near-term demand for CCS services. Large storage projects depend on aggregating significant volumes of captured CO₂ under long-term contracts. Without those volumes, it becomes difficult to justify multi-billion-dollar infrastructure investments.
Although regulatory frameworks for CO₂ transport and storage have improved, progress on capture facilities and permitting has slowed. Policies are advancing, but the pipeline of ready-to-build projects is not growing at the same pace. For CCS to work commercially, capture projects, transport networks, storage hubs, and long-term contracts must move forward together. Right now, those pieces are not fully aligned.
A Reality Check for the CCS Sector
Equinor’s cautious stance highlights a broader reality facing the carbon capture industry. CCS is widely seen as essential for decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors such as cement, steel, and chemicals. Many global net-zero pathways depend on large-scale deployment before 2030.
Yet technical readiness is not enough. Projects require predictable carbon pricing, stable long-term policy support, and customers willing to sign binding agreements. Without those elements, even experienced developers will hesitate.
The slowdown does not signal the end of CCS. Market forecasts still point to significant expansion over the next decade. However, deployment may not move as quickly as earlier expectations suggested.
Equinor’s message is clear. Climate ambition must translate into commercial commitment. Until customer demand strengthens and revenue visibility improves, capital will remain cautious. And for now, it is choosing discipline over speed. The company stands ready to invest when the economics make sense. But it will not move forward on optimism alone.
The post Is Carbon Capture Losing Steam? Equinor Reassesses CCS Investments appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
Carbon Footprint
Industries with the biggest nature footprints and what their decarbonisation looks like
A corporate carbon footprint is never just an accounting figure. It maps onto real ecosystems. Before a product leaves the factory gate, something on the ground has already paid the cost. A forest has been converted. A river has been depleted. A patch of savannah that was once home to dozens of species now grows a single crop in every direction.
![]()
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

