How a Secret Vote by U.N. Scientists Legitimized Carbon Capture and Skewed Decades of Climate Policy

In the historic year of 2005, the United Nations convened over 100 of the world's leading scientists in the quaint Spanish town of Oviedo. They were on a mission to finalize a groundbreaking report about a technology they believed could potentially combat climate change. As a token of their accomplishment, the hosts presented them with cava, a sparkling wine, with labels that humorously implied they could only be opened by true believers in the technology's efficacy.

The technology under discussion was carbon capture and storage, commonly referred to as CCS. The concept was straightforward: capture carbon dioxide before it could escape into the atmosphere from smokestacks, and then inject it into underground geological formations for permanent storage. The scientists had ample evidence that certain aspects of the process worked, but significant questions remained about the scale of underground storage, the effectiveness of monitoring, and the reliability of the gas's containment.

The lead scientist, Sally Benson, oversaw the chapter on underground storage and was known for her expertise and diplomatic skills. However, the scientists were divided over the report's content, having clashed over it since earlier meetings in Canada, Norway, Australia, and Brazil. The evidence was sparse, with only one large-scale experiment having rigorously tested permanent storage – a Norwegian operation that had successfully stored carbon from a gas field beneath the North Sea.

The situation was further complicated by the fact that the U.N. report was being prompted by the fossil fuel industry's desire to legitimize a technology that could allow them to continue burning fossil fuels. The oil, gas, and coal industries had long denied climate change while secretly worrying that policies aimed at addressing it would ultimately render them obsolete. Thus, they saw CCS as a means to keep their industries afloat.

Despite objections from some nations and environmental groups, the IPCC, the U.N.'s preeminent climate science authority, proceeded with the report. It even invited representatives from the industry and environmental groups to contribute. This resulted in the inclusion of an "expert elicitation," where the authors conducted an anonymous survey about their expectations of future evidence.

While some scientists were wary of such an approach, citing the potential to mislead the public, Benson and another scientist, Bert Metz, defended its use, stating that it was better than offering no guidance on such an important matter.

The IPCC's report, published five months later, painted CCS as a potential savior for the climate, enabling countries to continue using fossil fuels. It claimed that CCS could reduce the cost of stabilizing global CO2 concentrations by at least 30% and could account for up to 55% of the world's efforts to limit climate change through this century. However, it also acknowledged the gaps in research and uncertainties surrounding the technology.