ArticlePloS one2025
Analysis of proposed carbon capture projects in the US power sector and co-location with environmental justice communities.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancements in COMaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Molecular solutions to carbon pollution: innovations, mechanisms, and challenges in solvent-based carbon capture.Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, there has been a proliferation of new federal investments and policy support for "carbon management" technologies, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), as a strategy to mitigate the United States' greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). The equity implications of deploying these technologies-particularly their impacts on low-income communities and communities of color, or environmental justice (EJ) communities-have been understudied. A prominent example of this is seen in the US power sector, where CCS has been proposed as a means to mitigate the carbon dioxide emissions of fossil fuel-fired power plants, one of the major sources of GHGs in the country. EJ community leaders alongside some environmental organizations and researchers have voiced deep concerns about how CCS may exacerbate environmental injustice, given that it is itself input-intensive and can prolong the life of polluting fossil fuel infrastructure, which is disproportionately sited in low-income communities and communities of color. To begin to fill the gap in analyses of the equity implications of carbon management, we conducted a spatial analysis of CCS projects proposed for the power sector and their co-location with EJ communities. Compiling a proposed project list from four CCS databases, we found that 33 of the 35 projects were located in EJ communities, and that additionally, 423 of the 497 (or 85%) EJ census block groups located within three miles of at least one proposed project currently face heightened environmental stress. These results illustrate both the feasibility and the necessity of analyzing the co-location of proposed CCS buildout in EJ communities, and add to the nascent body of literature evaluating the impacts of carbon management technologies such as CCS on these communities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.