US Forest Service’s Dangerous Carbon Disposal Plan Would Foul Our National Forests

US Forest Service’s Dangerous Carbon Disposal Plan Would Foul Our National Forests

Regulation allowing captured carbon to be stored under public land would be ineffective, pose a danger to human and animal health, and destroy trees—our natural carbon storage systems

A proposal to store carbon underneath forests, like California’s Stanislaus National Forest, would be ineffective and dangerous, says BU researcher June Sekera. Photo by Pgiam/iStock

For the first time ever, the US Forest Service is proposing to give carbon capture companies a right to “perpetual use and occupancy” of our national forests for carbon dioxide waste disposal. The Forest Service has published a new proposed federal rule that would allow carbon collected from factories and power plants to be stored on its lands. What this means—if the rule is indeed finalized—is that carbon capture and disposal companies would be able to build massive industrial infrastructure in and through our forests to transport and then bury highly pressurized, toxic carbon dioxide under our public lands.

The CO2 would be transported into our forests by pipelines, resulting in tree clearance and disruption of forests for road building and pipeline construction. More trees would be cut down to make way for drilling rigs, injection wells, and well pads. Plus, because CO2 is buried at extremely high pressure and can escape back into the atmosphere or migrate to contaminate our drinking water sources, the injection wells must be monitored, using even more machinery and equipment. This industrial equipment might remain in our forests perpetually.

Carbon capture and storage is being rolled out by policymakers, legislators, and fossil fuel interests who claim that this process can curtail the atmospheric buildup of CO2, the prime driver of global heating that’s causing the climate change disasters we are already seeing. The US government has enacted billions of dollars in subsidies, meaning taxpayers are financing this activity.

In view of the aggressive role the US government and other governments have taken in fostering and subsidizing mechanical carbon capture, I began several years ago to examine these processes from the perspective of collective biophysical need—that is, are these methods meeting the needs of people and polities to curtail global heating? And what are the biophysical imperatives that cannot be escaped regardless of rhetoric? I led teams to seek answers to these questions.

Our research showed that mechanical methods of carbon capture and storage do not work as promised, in several ways. First, the amounts supposedly captured, which would be in the millions of tons a year, are so infinitesimal as to have no climate-relevant significance, given the billions of tons of CO2 emitted every year globally—on top of the excessive level of CO2 already in the atmosphere. Second, when you consider the biophysical realities, it turns out that the methods being subsidized in the US can actually emit more CO2 than they capture and bury, as explained in published research by myself and a colleague.

Moreover, the highly pressurized CO2 pulsing through the pipelines and forcibly injected underground is extremely dangerous and could have devastating impacts on people and wildlife. Compressing and highly pressurizing carbon dioxide turns it into an asphyxiant if it escapes. Nearby residents or wildlife or any people enjoying the forest in the vicinity of a leak, well blowout, or pipeline rupture could be sickened—even killed—by suffocation, because dense plumes of CO2 displace oxygen. Indeed, one CO2 blowout in Mississippi caused deer to suffocate. Another pipeline rupture in a rural area of the state left people unconscious and sent dozens to the hospital. In a pipeline rupture or well blowout, first responders may not be able to get to victims because gasoline engines cannot operate without oxygen, so the vehicles die.

Paradoxically, the proposed plan would bulldoze naturally carbon-sequestering trees to then “store” mechanically captured CO2 in those same areas. In fact, biological sequestration via forests and other natural systems is vastly more effective, efficient, and less costly than mechanical methods we are subsidizing now, as shown in a study by myself and colleagues, published this year.

When the Forest Service several months ago quietly announced its proposal to allow this CO2 waste dumping in our national forests, environmental advocates were alarmed. The groups circulated a petition, now signed by over 20,000 people expressing their outrage.

Why would the US Forest Service be doing this?

For carbon capture and disposal companies, the appeal of using public lands like national forests for their waste dumping is obvious: they are facing tremendous opposition from private property owners, tribes, local governments, and communities all over the country who are fighting carbon pipelines and CO2 waste disposal. The companies often engage in eminent domain battles to take land by force for pipelines and injection wells. Allowing the sacrifice of national forest land for this industrial waste disposal would be an end run around local towns and counties, and a much simpler and far less expensive route than having to deal with tens of thousands of individual landowners.

The US Forest Service plan is a proposed regulation; it is not yet final. Reactions to or comments on the proposed regulation can be submitted at Regulations.gov (the identifier code is FS-2023-0014). Comments must be submitted by no later than January 2.

The research is clear: mechanical carbon capture, along with pressurized underground storage, is an ineffective method of reducing the excess CO2 in our atmosphere. And it’s dangerous to people and places. If you treasure national forests, let the US Forest Service know what you think about their plan. It’s extremely important that the government hears from the public right now, before the rule is finalized.

June Sekera is a senior research fellow at the Boston University Global Development Policy Center.

“Expert Take” is a research-led opinion page that provides commentaries from BU researchers on a variety of issues—local, national, or international—related to their work. Anyone interested in submitting a piece should contact thebrink@bu.edu. The Brink reserves the right to reject or edit submissions. The views expressed are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent the views of Boston University.

This Series

Dismantling USAID and Withdrawing from World Health Organization “Will Cost Lives and Destroy Critical Infrastructure,” Writes BU Global Nutrition Expert

Also in

Expert Take

• January 28, 2025

  Americans Expect Social Media Content Moderation

• January 6, 2025

  Cycling Can Make Older Adults Healthier and More Independent. Here’s How to Design Bikes and Networks That Meet Their Needs

• October 4, 2024

  A Double Threat to Reproductive Health: Environmental Contaminants and a Lack of Access to Healthcare

Series home