Europe's largest carbon capture project is about to begin operating at Yara's Sluiskil plant in the Netherlands, with the fertiliser producer claiming it will capture 800,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, transport it, and inject it 2.6 kilometres beneath the Norwegian seabed. The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) says the project is not a climate win but a dangerous distraction that locks Europe's fertiliser sector into fossil gas dependence — and it is framing the numbers to make its case.

In an analysis published July 27, 2026, CIEL agrochemicals and fossil fuels campaigner Lisa Tostado argues that the project, developed with billions in public money, exemplifies Europe's costly bet on a technology with a track record of overpromising and underdelivering.

The material stream behind the capture

The project targets the ammonia value chain, the most carbon-intensive chemical reaction in industrial production. More than 90% of EU ammonia output is made from fossil gas, according to European Commission data cited by CIEL. Ammonia produced with carbon capture and storage is marketed as "blue ammonia" — labelled 'climate-friendly' or 'low-carbon' by producers.

CIEL challenges that framing on three counts. CCS projects, the organisation says, fail to achieve promised capture rates, do nothing to address methane emissions along the fossil gas supply chain, and increase fossil fuel consumption. Even if ammonia production itself were emissions-free, nitrogen fertilisers emit two-thirds of their greenhouse gases on the field, beyond the reach of any capture system or green production pathway.

The public bill

The economics draw as much fire as the climate accounting. CIEL notes CCS cannot survive without public support and that Europe's planned CCS expansion could cost up to €140 billion in government backing, citing IEEFA analysis. The broader CCS infrastructure that Yara's project relies on — the Norwegian storage and transport system — has already drawn €131 million in public funding from the Norwegian government and the EU, according to Northern Lights.

The cost exposure runs through the gas market. Up to 80% of ammonia production costs are fossil gas costs, meaning gas price spikes feed directly into fertiliser and food prices. The EU imports around 90% of its gas, increasingly from the US, where highly polluting shale gas dominates supply, CIEL notes, citing an investigation into European fertiliser plants using US shale-derived ammonia.

Crises including the US-Israel war on Iran, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and COVID-19 disrupted fossil fuel supply chains and demonstrated, in CIEL's view, that Europe cannot afford deeper dependence on fossil fuels and fossil-based fertilisers.

The nitrogen pollution ledger

Beyond CO2, the analysis points to a pollution problem blue ammonia does not touch. Only about 60% of synthetic nitrogen applied as fertiliser in the EU is absorbed by plants, per European Environment Agency data cited by CIEL. The remainder 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 — a figure CIEL says outweighs the direct economic benefits of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers.

The counterfactual

CIEL argues redirecting public money from the fossil-intensive fertiliser model toward lower-input and ultimately fossil-free farming systems would deliver greater economic and environmental returns and shield Europe from gas price shocks. The organisation cites evidence from regenerative farming trials between 2020 and 2023 showing farmers achieved, on average, just 1% lower yields in kilocalories and proteins while using 62% less synthetic nitrogen fertiliser and 76% less pesticides per hectare.

Legumes, which biologically fix nitrogen and reduce fertiliser demand, remain underexploited despite these benefits, according to the analysis. What is missing, in CIEL's telling, is the political support and investment to scale up agroecological alternatives.

"Every euro handed to projects like Yara's is a euro not invested in scalable solutions that address the crises Europe actually faces," Tostado writes. "Europe's farmers, taxpayers, and communities deserve better."

Proponents present blue ammonia and CCS as a necessary bridge to cut emissions. CIEL's verdict is blunt: it is not a bridge but a lock-in — consuming public money and political attention while delaying the transition away from fossil gas in the fertiliser sector.

What happens next turns on the pace of the EU's CCS subsidy pipeline, the up-to-€140-billion question of how much state backing flows to capture infrastructure versus alternatives, and whether Yara's 800,000-tonne-per-year capture operation at Sluiskil delivers the rates its backers have promised.