In current climate policy, we often encounter the concept of “hard-to-reduce” emissions, which has become a key justification for carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies or for solutions to negative emissions, such as direct CO2 capture from air (DAC) or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). This concept is repeated by many industry lobbyists and official bodies, including the European Commission, Chevron, Siemens, UNECE, the Asian Development Bank and the IEA. However, as sources point out, the term “hard to reduce” is problematic and is likely the result of a massive lobbying effort, not scientific basis.

The criticism lies in several points:

• Questioning the existence a large group of emissions without mitigation options.
• Limited effectiveness of CCS: CCS will never capture 100 % of emissions, often only around 50 %, and with significant energy losses (so-called "parasitic" energy loss or "energy penalty") that can increase fuel consumption for electricity generation by 13-44 %.
• Speed of CCS deployment: Doubts about how quickly CCS can be deployed at a relevant scale.
• Alternatives to negative emissions: Emphasis on technological solutions (DAC, BECCS) instead of natural solutions such as afforestation and wetland restoration, which are often cheaper, faster and safer.
• CCS as a temporary solution: CCS is inherently an interim measure that requires additional, equally expensive systems in the future. Investing in one extremely expensive system first and then moving to another, equally expensive one, makes no sense for society.

Alternatives in key sectors:

Although some sectors are often described as “difficult to reduce”, sources point to the existence of other, better solutions:

• Steel industry: Although once considered a prime candidate for CCS, today there is An alternative, carbon-free path: green hydrogen-based steelmakingMajor steel companies are already testing or building such processes, including SSAB, LKAB, Vattenfall, McKinsey, Baowu and Fortescue.
• Cement production: Although CCS projects in cement plants exist (e.g. in Norway), they are costly and not the only solution. Companies like Ecocem are already achieving significant CO2 reductions of 70 % by using alternative binders.
• Agriculture: The main emissions (methane, nitrous oxide, CO2) cannot be captured by CCS. Instead, there is many ways to reduce emissions, for example by adjusting livestock farming practices or optimising the use of fertilisers.
• Natural gas processing: Although most of the carbon captured comes from this sector, CO2 is often reinjected into oil wells for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), which does not actually lead to the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. The best solution is to reduce natural gas consumption and use gas with lower CO2 content.
• Shipping and aviation: Capturing CO2 on board ships is considered a very far-fetched idea due to the volume and weight of the equipment required. Alternatives include speed reduction, use of wind and solar energy on shipsBiofuels may play a role in aviation, but to a limited extent. The key is reduction in traffic volume.
• Biofuels: Capturing CO2 from biofuel combustion is unrealistic. Production of corn ethanol with CCS is criticized as unsustainable and unecological, despite significant subsidies.
• Low-carbon (blue) hydrogen: It is produced from fossil gas with CCS, but green hydrogen (from electrolysis with renewable energy) is faster and easierUsing hydrogen for heating instead of heat pumps is considered inefficient.
• Ammonia: An alternative to CO2-emitting production is reducing fertilizer consumption, consuming less meat and, above all, using green hydrogen.
• Plastics and chemical industry: Instead of "molecular" recycling, which would require extensive and expensive infrastructure, the preferred policy is "reduce, reuse, recycle"The chemical industry is heterogeneous, and some parts of it (such as the pharmaceutical industry) do not have significant emissions to justify massive investments in CCS.
• Waste management and waste incineration: Although there are plans for CCS in waste incinerators, the sector has "perverse incentives", which go against reducing, reusing and recycling waste. The real solution is "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" policy and biogas production from organic waste.

In conclusion, concept "hard to reduce" sectors is questioned. The source claims that these sectors are either not difficult to reduce or are of minor importance in terms of emissionsThey cannot therefore justify large-scale investments in CCS infrastructure. The surest way to reduce emissions is to limit our use of fossil fuels. Spring

Glossary of key terms

• Hard to abate: A concept that claims that there is a large group of emissions that are difficult to reduce and require carbon capture technology (CCS) or negative emissions. The author questions the legitimacy of this notion, claiming it is the result of lobbying.
• Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): A technology that involves capturing CO2 from large industrial sources and then permanently storing it underground. The author criticizes its efficiency, energy consumption, and economic disadvantage as a long-term solution.
• Negative emissions: Technologies and methods that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The document distinguishes between technological measures (such as DAC and BECCS) and natural solutions (such as afforestation and wetland restoration).
• Direct Air Capture (DAC): A technological solution for directly extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. The author considers it very expensive and doubts its technical and economic credibility.
• Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS): Combining biomass energy production with CO2 capture and storage. The author questions its sustainability in terms of land use and costs.
• Green hydrogen (Green hydrogen): Hydrogen produced by electrolysis of water using renewable electricity. The author promotes it as an alternative to fossil fuels in sectors such as steel and the chemical industry.
• Blue hydrogen: Hydrogen produced from fossil gas with subsequent capture of CO2 emissions using CCS. The author criticizes it as a less sustainable option compared to green hydrogen.
• Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR): The process in which CO2 is injected into oil wells to displace more oil. The author criticizes that many CCS projects in the natural gas sector use EOR, which only moves CO2 but does not remove it.
• Demand-Side Management (DSM): Optimizing electricity consumption on the consumer side to balance fluctuations in supply from variable renewable sources. The author considers it key to grid stability without CCS.
• Carbon circularity: A concept promoted by industry lobbyists, particularly from the oil sector, that suggests CO2 can be recycled and reused. The author sees this as an attempt to maintain the status quo.
• CCU (Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage): An extension of CCS that includes the use of captured CO2 to produce various products. The author questions the practicality and economic feasibility of large-scale use of CO2 as a feedstock.
• HYBRID: The Swedish initiative to produce fossil-free steel using green hydrogen is cited by the author as a successful example of an alternative decarbonization strategy.
• Perverse incentive: An unintended and undesirable outcome of economic policy that leads to behavior that is contrary to the original goal. The author uses it to describe motivation in the waste incineration industry.