Beyond the Pledge: Geological Carbon Storage in NDC 3.0 and the Limits of Tracking International Pledges
March 2026
This evidence briefing examines how the world’s largest fossil fuel producers reference geological carbon storage (GCS) in their updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs 3.0). While GCS, including carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) with permanent storage, is increasingly recognised as essential for achieving net zero, our analysis finds that international pledges provide only a partial and often misleading picture of progress.
In this briefing, we show that while references to geological storage are becoming more common, they are typically vague, inconsistent, and poorly aligned with domestic policy and investment trends. This raises a broader question: are NDCs still a reliable indicator of climate ambition, particularly in emerging mitigation areas such as geological storage?
Key Findings
Widespread but vague inclusion of geological storage: 75% of major fossil fuel producers reference GCS in their NDCs, but commitments are typically non-specific and lack quantitative targets or clear implementation pathways.
Significant gap between NDCs and domestic policy: Several countries with limited or no mention of GCS in their NDCs are actively developing CCS through national policy and investment, suggesting that NDCs increasingly underrepresent real-world developments.
Limited clarity on the role of storage in net zero pathways: Countries reference GCS in hard-to-abate sectors, but do not clearly define its role in addressing residual emissions.
Storage expansion alongside continued fossil fuel production: Many countries with strong GCS commitments also plan to maintain or expand fossil fuel production, highlighting tensions between storage deployment and Paris-aligned transition pathways.
Policy Implications
Assessing climate ambition requires moving beyond Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) as the primary indicator of progress. While NDCs remain central to international climate governance, they often underrepresent developments in domestic policy, regulation, and investment, particularly in emerging mitigation areas such as geological carbon storage. A more accurate assessment of global progress should therefore place greater emphasis on national policy frameworks and implementation pathways alongside international pledges.
The role of geological carbon storage must be clearly aligned with Paris-consistent transition pathways. Scaling GCS is essential for achieving durable net zero, but it must complement – rather than substitute for – reductions in fossil fuel production and use. Storage should be prioritised for addressing residual emissions, and should not be used to justify continued expansion of fossil fuel extraction or delay mitigation in sectors where emissions reductions are feasible.
Greater transparency is needed regarding how countries intend to deploy GCS within their climate strategies. In particular, international commitments should more clearly define expected residual emissions levels and specify the role of CCS and CDR in addressing them. Without this clarity, there is a risk that GCS is deployed in ways that undermine overall mitigation ambition.
Improved tracking of geological storage deployment is needed to ensure accountability and alignment with net zero pathways. Given the lack of quantified targets in most NDCs, new metrics, such as the geological storage fraction (GSF), can help assess whether storage capacity is scaling at the pace required. Tracking progress across major fossil fuel-producing countries will be particularly important, given their central role in delivering large-scale storage infrastructure.
