Systemic failure: Why large-scale biomass carbon capture projects collapse despite climate urgency

Indigenous communities globally have long practiced carbon stewardship through agroecology, forest conservation, and rotational burning practices that maintain biodiversity and soil carbon. Projects like BECCS violate principles of *buen vivir* (Andean buen vivir) or *sumak kawsay* (Kichwa 'living well'), which reject the separation of humans from nature and the privatization of ecological services. The failure of BECCS highlights the incompatibility of industrial carbon capture with indigenous land sovereignty and self-determination.

The collapse of BECCS mirrors past 'techno-fixes' like nuclear power or carbon capture and storage (CCS), which were marketed as silver bullets while delaying systemic change. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s reliance on carbon offsets created perverse incentives that persist today, with BECCS emerging as a 21st-century iteration of this flawed logic. Historical precedents like the 1970s 'Green Revolution' show how industrial solutions to ecological crises often exacerbate social and environmental injustices.

In contrast to Western techno-optimism, many Global South traditions view climate action as inseparable from social justice, as seen in the Cochabamba People’s Agreement (2010) or India’s Chipko movement. The failure of BECCS underscores the need to center epistemologies that reject the commodification of nature, such as the African philosophy of *ubuntu* ('I am because we are') or the Māori concept of *whanaungatanga* (relationship-based governance). These frameworks prioritize collective well-being over market-based 'solutions.'

Peer-reviewed studies (e.g., Smith et al., 2016 in *Nature Climate Change*) show BECCS’s land-use intensity would require 25–46% of global arable land, risking food security and biodiversity loss. Life-cycle analyses reveal BECCS often emits more CO2 than it captures due to deforestation, transport, and processing emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself notes BECCS’s reliance on unproven negative emissions technologies (NETs) as a high-risk strategy for overshooting 1.5°C targets.

Artists like Ursula K. Le Guin and poets like Gary Snyder have long critiqued the hubris of technological salvation, framing climate collapse as a spiritual crisis of disconnection from Earth. The failure of BECCS evokes the Buddhist concept of *dukkha* (suffering from delusion), where humanity clings to false solutions while ignoring root causes. Indigenous art forms, such as Māori *whakapapa* (genealogical storytelling), remind us that climate action must honor intergenerational relationships with land.

Scenario modeling by the IPCC (e.g., SSP1-1.9) shows BECCS is not a prerequisite for 1.5°C pathways; rapid decarbonization, renewable energy scaling, and land-use reform are far more effective. The collapse of BECCS could accelerate a shift toward degrowth economics, where sufficiency and redistribution replace growth-based climate strategies. Future systems must prioritize circular economies, agroecology, and energy democracy to avoid repeating these failures.

Frontline communities—particularly Black, Indigenous, and peasant farmers—have consistently opposed BECCS due to its land grabs and displacement risks, as seen in protests against Drax in the UK and Enviva in the US. Women in Global South agroecological movements (e.g., La Via Campesina) have demonstrated that their knowledge systems outperform industrial carbon capture in both emissions reduction and social equity. The erasure of these voices in climate policy reflects a broader pattern of epistemic injustice in environmental governance.