Carbon capture and storage (CCS) underpins the European Union’s (EU) strategy to decarbonise industries such as cement, steel, and chemicals. It involves capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from industrial facilities, transporting it by pipeline or shipping and storing it permanently in geological formations. According to the European Commission this technology that captures emissions at their source to prevent them from escaping into the atmosphere is a crucial part of the carbon phaseout pathways for many EU countries.It consists of three consecutive steps: (i) industrial emitters “capture” their carbon dioxide emissions by separating them from the rest of the flue gas; (ii) the CO2 is then transported, generally by ship or pipeline, to a geological storage site; and (iii) the emissions are permanently stored underground.Under the EU Net-Zero Industry Act, at least 50 million tonnes of annual CO2 injection capacity must be in place by 2030. The European Commission estimates that the EU will need to store around 250 million tonnes of CO₂ each year by 2040.Meeting these targets requires capture facilities, transport pipelines, andstorage sites to be developed in unison. For pipeline investment, large upfrontcosts need to be incurred before future CO2 volumes and revenues are certain. Yet industrial emitters hesitate to invest in carbon capture without reliable transport and storage, while pipeline operators need commitments from industrial facility users before construction can begin. Transport pipelines, shipping terminals, and storage sites may also be underused during the market’s early years. Delays in building any part of the chain can prevent the others from becoming operational. The EU has made CCS a major focus of its Net-Zero Industry Act by setting itself the task of annually storing at least 50 million tonnes of CO₂ by 2030. wasanajai/Shutterstock, CC BY These interdependencies explain why CCS is not only a financial challenge, but also a question of policy design: which costs should governments cover at different stages of market development? Who finances shared infrastructure and how are risks going to be allocated between public entities and CCS agents (capture plants, transport operators, and storage providers)?What constitutes good carbon capture policymaking?Effective policy design should identify and address the barriers holding projectsback, and reward delivery, without making agents responsible for delays they cannot control. The appropriate balance will change as the sector matures and capture, transport and storage infrastructure becomes operational, project experience grows and delivery risks become more predictable: early support may be needed to reduce infrastructure and coordination risks, while later schemes can rely more heavily on incentives linked to performance. There is therefore no one-size-fits-all policy approach.In practice, approaches vary across Europe, particularly among Nordic countries. France, Belgium, and Germany have focused more heavily on access, tariffs and regulatory rules, minimising public funding. By contrast, Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark rely more heavily on direct public involvement in flagship projects.Norway covered 80% of Northern Lights’ investment costs as part of the Longship programme, which began permanently storing carbon dioxide in August 2025. In the Netherlands, state-owned companies are developing shared transport and storage infrastructure through projects including Porthos, now expected to begin operating in the second half of 2027. Denmark initially prequalified ten projects for its DKK 28.7 billion CCS Fund. But, in June 2026, support was awarded to only one: Aalborg Portland’s plan to capture and store up to 1.25 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually from cement production.Denmark illustrates that the suitability of these approaches should dependon the sector’s maturity. The Danish performance-based scheme linkedsupport to verified volumes of stored CO2 and imposed penalties for unmet targets.This structure created clear incentives to meet Denmark’s emissions reduction target, but also left beneficiaries exposed to the risk that delays in capture, transport, or storage, including delays caused by other participants; could prevent them from delivering the contracted volumes. Eight out of ten projects withdrew before the second round, suggesting that the scheme placed too much risk on beneficiaries at this early stage of deployment.The Danish experience does not reveal a common Nordic approach, however. Norwayreduced coordination risk by supporting the whole Longship chain. Denmark itself used a comparable principle when developing offshore wind: production-based support was combined with grid connections built and financed by Energinet, rather than leaving individual wind farms to bear the shared infrastructure risk. These examples suggest that support linked to volume delivery can be effective, but during early deployment it should be accompanied by measures addressing shared infrastructure and coordination risks.Our recent analysis of CO2 transport governance suggests that governments can socialise part of the cost and utilisation risk of shared infrastructure through targeted subsidies, public risk-sharing or public and regulated infrastructure operators. The Danish case provides an additional lesson: penalties for under-delivery may need to be limited or adapted during early deployment, particularly when delays originate elsewhere in the value chain.Support linked to verified volumes of stored CO2 may become more appropriate as infrastructure develops and delivery risks become more predictable. Finally, public or regulated infrastructure operators could also improve coordination and provide greater certainty about infrastructure availability and access.These policy choices will also determine which industries will be able to use CCS and at what cost. Clinker, which is central to the cement-making process, is formed when raw materials like limestone and clay are heated to extreme temperatures of 1,400°C to 1,450°C in a rotary kiln. Parmna/Shutterstock, CC BY In cement production, CCS can address emissions released by the chemical process used to make clinker (the most carbon-intensive component of cement manufacturing), which cannot be eliminated simply by switching to renewable energy.Steel and chemical producers can also consider electrification, renewable hydrogen, recycling and changes in production processes. Industrial clusters can share CO2 transport infrastructure more easily, while dispersed cement plants may face higher connection costs or longer delays. For construction companies and large publicly funded projects, CCS could affect the cost and availability of lower-carbon cement and steel.Ultimately, achieving Europe’s CCS goals depends not just on the amount of public funding alone, but also on how governments allocate risks and responsibilities across the value chain, while remaining consistent with climate objectives.This article was co-written with Adrien Nicolle and Burçin Ünel.Marzia Sesini ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.