As the EU invests billions in carbon capture, it risks locking Europe’s economy into fossil fertilisers instead of supporting genuinely sustainable alternatives.
Published July 27, 2026
By Lisa Tostado, Agrochemicals and Fossil Fuels Campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law.
This piece is also available on Real Zero Europe’s website.
Europe’s largest carbon capture project, which is about to begin operating in the Netherlands, exemplifies Europe’s costly bet on a technology with a history of overpromising and underdelivering. Developed by fertiliser giant Yara with billions in taxpayers’ money, the project is being promoted as a climate breakthrough for the industry. In reality, it is another expensive and dangerous distraction that delays real climate action.
Crises such as the US-Israel war on Iran, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and COVID-19, all of which disrupted fossil fuel supply chains, have shown that Europe cannot afford deeper dependence on fossil fuels. Instead, Europe must transition away from fossil-based fertilisers and invest in agroecological solutions.
Blue Ammonia is not Climate-Friendly
Ammonia is the key ingredient in nitrogen fertilisers. In the EU, more than 90% of it is made from fossil gas. Producing it emits more carbon dioxide (CO2) than any other chemical reaction. Yara claims it will capture 800,000 tons of this CO2 each year at its Dutch plant in Sluiskil, transport it, and inject it 2.6 kilometres beneath the Norwegian seabed.
Ammonia produced with carbon capture and storage (CCS), or “blue ammonia”, is often marketed as ‘climate-friendly’, or ‘low-carbon’. In reality, CCS fails to achieve promised capture rates, does nothing to address methane emissions throughout the fossil gas supply chain, and increases fossil fuel consumption.
Even if ammonia was produced without emissions, nitrogen fertilisers emit two-thirds of their greenhouse gases on the field — beyond the reach of CCS and even green production pathways.
Taxpayers Foot the Bill
The economics of CCS are as troubling as its climate impacts. CCS cannot survive without public money. Europe’s planned CCS expansion could cost up to €140 billion in government support. The broader CCS infrastructure that Yara’s project will also rely on has already used €131 million in public funding from the Norwegian government as well as the EU.
Governments are subsidising continued and even greater reliance on fossil gas, leaving Europe dangerously reliant on volatile, expensive, and polluting gas imports.
An Increased Vulnerability to Fossil Fuel Markets
This dependence also carries major economic risks. Up to 80% of ammonia production costs are fossil gas costs, so when gas prices spike, due to a trade dispute or conflict, for instance, fertiliser and food prices go up too.
The EU also imports around 90% of its gas, increasingly from the US, where highly polluting shale gas dominates. Investing in blue ammonia, therefore, leaves the European economy reliant on imports and fails to increase energy resilience.
The Billion-Euro Pollution Problem That Blue Ammonia Does Not Address
Pouring public money into blue ammonia does not address the nitrogen pollution caused by the synthetic fertilisers. Irrespective of how ammonia is produced, the damage caused by nitrogen fertiliser overuse continues. Only about 40% of the synthetic nitrogen applied as fertiliser in the EU is absorbed by plants; the rest contaminates waterways, destroys biodiversity, degrades soils, and contributes to air pollution.
The overall environmental costs of nitrogen pollution in Europe are estimated at €70–320 billion per year, outweighing the direct economic benefits of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers.
Proponents of blue ammonia and CCS present them as a necessary bridge to reduce emissions. But blue ammonia isn’t a bridge; it’s a dangerous distraction. It locks in fossil fuel dependence and delays the transition away from them, while consuming public money and political attention.
Real Solutions Exist and Are Available
Redirecting taxpayers’ money from today’s fossil-intensive fertiliser model towards lower-input and ultimately fossil-free farming systems would deliver far greater economic and environmental returns. It would also make Europe more resilient to fossil fuel price shocks
Evidence shows that high farming yields do not have to rely on synthetic nitrogen. One of the most important levers is legumes, which can biologically fix nitrogen, reducing nitrogen fertiliser demand and overall fossil fuel use. Despite these benefits, legumes remain underexploited. What is missing is the political support and investment to scale up agroecological solutions such as legumes and other low-input farming practices.
Every euro handed to projects like Yara’s is a euro not invested in scalable solutions that address the crises Europe actually faces. Europe’s farmers, taxpayers, and communities deserve better.