Most modern major companies claim to have a decarbonization plan, but whether any of these plans are being seriously implemented is debatable — Even if every promise were sincere, some parts of the economy cannot be fully decarbonized with current technology.
Airlines are the clearest example. Jet fuel has no scalable, zero-carbon replacement for long-haul flight. Cement presents an even more basic problem — commercial cement is the product of a chemical reaction that produces large amounts of CO2. Even an electric cement plant would still release a massive amount of carbon dioxide. These are not problems that better batteries or greener grids can solve. Making cement produces carbon; it’s a matter of elementary chemistry.
This creates a dilemma. If we only mandate what is easy for companies to implement, emissions keep rising. If we pretend everything can be decarbonized quickly, climate policy collapses under its obvious failures. A serious approach has to accept two tenets at once: we need full decarbonization everywhere that it is possible, and we need honest promises from sectors where it is not.
The United States should adopt a two-track climate strategy. First, aggressive, enforceable decarbonization across all sectors where clean alternatives meet most or all demand. Second, heavy investment in carbon recapturing to offset emissions from sectors that cannot reach zero in the near term. Carbon dioxide removal is no longer science fiction. The technology exists. In Iceland, Climeworks operates direct air capture facilities. In Norway, Heidelberg Materials opened the world’s first industrial-scale cement plant with carbon capture this past June, pulling 400,000 metric tons of CO2 per year out of the production process. In Texas, the Stratos facility is on track to become the largest direct air capture plant in the world by the end of 2026, with capacity to remove up to 500,000 metric tons annually. The Inflation Reduction Act provides up to $180 per metric ton for captured carbon that is permanently stored. But the industry needs to scale up carbon capture 25 to 100 times by 2030 to align with net-zero pathways. That does not happen without seriously increased investment and clear policy signals.
Here is where it gets complicated: the federal government should not just fund carbon removal. It should require major emitters to pay for it. Companies and industries that have profited from decades of emissions bear responsibility for the cleanup. That also means compensating inevitable losses and damages to vulnerable, historically marginalized communities disproportionately affected by climate impacts.
This is not a simple ask. A recent study found that 33 of the 35 proposed carbon capture projects in the U.S. are located in environmental justice communities, places already facing heightened environmental stress. If we build the infrastructure for carbon removal on the backs of the same communities that have borne the brunt of fossil fuel pollution for decades, we will have failed to create sustainable change before we start. Any serious policy must include community input, local benefit-sharing, and strict safeguards against additional pollution. The goal is to fix the problem, not relocate it.
Some will say this approach is politically infeasible. They will point to the lobbying power of oil and gas giants, the influence of manufacturing interests, the reality that Congress moves slowly — if it moves at all. But it can be successful. We have tried the path of least resistance. We have tried incentives. We have tried gentle nudges. Companies found shortcuts. They outsourced production to countries with weaker regulations. They exploited offset loopholes. A recent analysis of major corporate net-zero pledges found that companies are actually committed to reducing their carbon footprint by only 36% on average, not the 90% that real decarbonization requires. The gradual approach gave industries room to delay, and they took it.
There is also a deeper risk. If we tell industries that carbon removal will eventually clean up their mess, some will use that promise as an excuse to keep emitting. Researchers call this “mitigation deterrence.” Removal is not a substitute for cutting emissions, it is a tool for addressing only what we genuinely cannot cut.
Industry has a role, though it is secondary to the role of government. Companies developing removal technologies should continue to innovate and scale. The work happening in Norway, Iceland, and Texas proves that industrial-scale carbon capture is possible. Clean energy firms need to keep driving down costs for sectors where decarbonization is feasible. Activists and civil society need to push for inclusive governance structures that bring affected communities and Indigenous peoples into climate decision-making. None of this replaces federal action, but it creates the conditions for policy to succeed.
The emissions of the cement and aviation industries are not going away, but we do not need to accept their emissions as inevitable and permanent. We have the tools to capture what cannot be cut. We have the resources to fund that work. What we lack is the political will to demand it.
Congress needs to establish dedicated funding for carbon removal deployment, tied to emissions from hard-to-abate sectors. The Environmental Protection Agency needs to set clear standards that account for lifecycle emissions in cement and aviation. Major emitters should be required to contribute to a fund for climate adaptation in frontline communities, with those communities at the table when decisions are made. And all of us — students, voters, citizens — need to make clear that half-measures are no longer acceptable.
The companies with glossy climate pledges are watching. The lobbyists are watching. The question is whether we will keep accepting promises, or start demanding results.
