In the heart of Pakistan, where the Thar desert stretches its golden sands and the mangroves sway along the southeastern coastline, a quiet and urgent story of climate struggle unfolds. Pakistan climate goals, submitted before UN COP30 in Brazil and promised a vision of decarbonisation and a greener future. However, behind the official numbers lies a troubling reality – a reliance on carbon capture technology to spark debate amid climate experts and civil society, as they warn it could derail genuine climate action.
While the government claims the Pakistan climate goals were prepared and developed through a “participatory, open, and transparent approach,” critics argue that the plan leans heavily on carbon-intensive measures rather than concrete steps to phase out fossil fuels.
Pakistan Climate Goals: Coal, CCUS, and the Mirage of Clean Energy
At the heart of the controversy is the inclusion of Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) technology, a costly and unproven approach that aims to capture carbon emissions from industrial sources and store or repurpose them.
The technology is touted as a way to decarbonise economy in line with the 2015 Paris Agreement, but many experts see it as a “false solution” that perpetuates reliance on coal rather than promoting renewable energy alternatives.
The Pakistan climate goals or the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) outline the country’s commitment to reduce emissions by 50% by 2035, including 33% through international funding. The plan estimates a requirement of $565.7 billion for implementation. Despite pledges to “phase down” coal, local lignite coal remains a cornerstone of Pakistan’s energy policy, and the inclusion of CCUS is widely seen as a way to continue coal use under the guise of climate action.
The sprawling coal fields of Thar, with their low-quality lignite, are a symbol of Pakistan’s energy hunger. Despite pledges to curb imported coal, local coal plants remain central to the nation’s energy strategy. To “green” these emissions, CCUS is being presented as the saviour. This technology captures carbon dioxide from industrial emissions and stores it underground or repurposes it for products like concrete and chemicals. But experts are skeptical. They question the viability of CCUS.
Climate Experts on Pakistan Climate Goals in the Backdrop of CCUS
Climate policy analysts argue that CCUS is neither financially feasible nor technologically ready for Pakistan climate goals. Maria Rehman, climate policy analyst at Islamabad-based Climate and Weather Services calls it an engineering illusion – costly, technologically complex, and economically unviable for Pakistan’s current context. She highlights that CCUS requires advanced engineering, vast infrastructure, and massive investment – all challenging for a country facing economic hardships.
The World Resources Institute adds that carbon capture separates CO₂ from industrial gases, storing it underground or using it in products like concrete. Yet globally, the technology has struggled with cost overruns and low efficiency. CCUS has failed to deliver consistent results. Projects from Algeria to Texas suffer from delays and cost overruns. Even industry claims of 95% capture rates fall short, rarely exceeding 80%. For Pakistan, pursuit of this “false solution” risks locking the country into decades of fossil fuel dependence.
Ammara Aslam, a climate change researcher at Policy Research Institute for Equitable Development (Pried) contends that the government’s emphasis on CCUS reflects a desire to maintain energy security through local coal rather than invest in renewable energy sources like solar and wind, which are economically viable and abundant in Pakistan.
Dr. Muhammad Faheem Khokhar, head of the Environmental Sciences Department at the National University of Science and Technology (NUST) adds that the technology is “energy-intensive, expensive, and geographically limited,” as Pakistan lacks sufficient depleted oil and gas fields for large-scale carbon storage. The cost of capturing one tonne of carbon ranges from $20 to over $1000, depending on the method, excluding transport and storage costs.
CCUS: A Global Greenwashing Effort?
International observers have criticized CCUS as a greenwashing tactic promoted by fossil fuel lobbyists. Transparency International, at COP30, noted presence of 531 CCUS lobbyists in Belém shaping climate agenda to serve corporate profits rather than reduce emissions.
Experts warn that reliance on this technology could lock Pakistan into decades of fossil fuel dependence, undermining climate action and wasting financial resources. Besides its economic costs, the CCUS has also been described by civil society as a false solution that would harm the environment in the name of climate action. This technology has been routinely promoted by the industry at climate conferences, where the presence of carbon capture lobbyists has attracted flak from civil society groups.
“These lobbyists are shaping the climate discourse by promoting ‘solutions’ from which they stand to profit, rather than taking responsibility for reducing their own emissions,” according to the statement quoted Brice Bohmer, climate and environment lead at Transparency International.
Nature’s Secret: Solutions that Actually Work As a Practical Alternative
Rather than investing in costly carbon capture technology, experts advocate for nature-based solutions (NBS) and homegrown carbon removal methods. Mangroves along Pakistan’s southeastern coastline, for example, are highly effective at carbon sequestration. Scientists at NUST have experimented with CO₂ arresters, carbon bins, and converting captured carbon into methanol, offering low-cost, homegrown alternatives to expensive carbon capture plants while avoiding the high costs and environmental risks associated with CCUS.
Rehman emphasizes that renewable energy – the abundant solar rays over Balochistan and the winds across Sindh – provides a far more practical and economically viable path. “Solar and wind can deliver higher emission reductions without the environmental and financial risks of CCUS,” she notes.
A Choice Between Illusion and Reality
Pakistan stands at a crossroads. One path clings to CCUS, promising rapid but costly solutions that may lock the country into decades of coal dependence. The other embraces renewables, nature-based solutions, and innovative local carbon removal technologies – a path aligned with both environmental sustainability and economic sense.
As the mangroves whisper along the coastline and the deserts soak in the sun, the real secret of nature becomes clear: true climate solutions grow from the ground up, rooted in the landscapes and ecosystems we are trying to protect. For Pakistan climate goals, choosing nature over false solutions may be the difference between a sustainable future and decades of costly delay.
The Need and Urgency for a Coal Phaseout
Energy experts argue that Pakistan must adopt a bold and decisive stance against coal if it hopes to meet its climate commitments and move toward a cleaner energy future. They emphasize that the early retirement of imported coal-fired power plants – particularly the Sahiwal coal power plant – could save the country billions of rupees in capacity payments that continue to burden the national economy. At the same time, experts warn that Pakistan’s ongoing dependence on local lignite coal, especially from the Thar region, risks significantly increasing greenhouse gas emissions and undermining the country’s environmental goals.
Without a clear shift toward renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, they caution, Pakistan climate goals may find it increasingly difficult to balance its growing energy demands with its obligations to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change.
Ammara Aslam emphasizes the urgency: “Without decarbonisation measures, Pakistan’s positioning for climate finance weakens, and adaptation costs rise as global temperatures climb.”
Ultimately, the path to sustainable energy in Pakistan climate goals lies in phasing out coal, investing in renewables, and leveraging nature-based solutions – not in expensive, untested technologies that promise more illusion than impact.
