Canada must reduce carbon emissions, not try and capture it

The federal government published the April 2021 budget and proposed creating a Private companies that invest in carbon capture and utilization projects will get a new tax credit.

However, in January, just after the consultation period had ended, more than 400 Canadian climate scientists, academics, energy system modellers and researchers are urgedThe government was forced to cancel its plan. The letter attracted significant attention. Media attention, with pointed responses in favor of the tax credit business journalistsAlso available: Industry representatives Lobbyists.

As a climate policy scholar and one of the many academics opposed to this new tax credit, I’m concerned by the misleading arguments made by the tax credit’s supporters. The credit would shift millions of dollars away from safer and cheaper climate solutions to fossil fuels. It’s time to clear the air about the reality — and the risks — of carbon capture as a means of climate policy.

Carbon capture demystified

There are two types of carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS). The first aims to Smokestacks can capture concentrated carbon dioxidefrom difficult-to-decarbonize industries, such as oil and gas, steel, and concrete before it is released to the atmosphere. The second seeks to capture dilute carbon from the air — called direct air capture — after it has been emitted.

Both types bury carbon captured underground. Both require enormous amounts additional energy. to do so. Historically, the “energy penalty” of CCUS — the additional energy required to operate CCUS per unit of energy generated by a power plant for basic consumption — was It was previously thought that it was 25%. However, recent data suggests that it could be as high a 49%.

CCUS has the purpose of keeping carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to slow global warming. Presently, however, Over 80 percent of the CCUS is actually used in an enhanced oil recovery processThe capture of carbon is used to extract additional oil or gas from reserves that are otherwise difficult to mine.

For both types of capture to achieve their stated purpose, the additional energy used must not emit any carbon — it must come from renewable energy sources. If it weren’t being used here, this zero-carbon energy could otherwise be used to directly meet our energy needs, making Inefficient carbon capture technology Highly expensive.

Extended fossil fuel production

Three points were highlighted in the letter to Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister, and Minister of Finance.

1. Carbon capture doesn’t work at the scale required.

2. It’s prohibitively expensiveCompared to non-polluting alternative energy.

3. Government subsidies for CCUS support will only be available to the affluent. Lock-in the production and use of fossil fuelsCanada, and further delay decarbonization.

The argument was made by supporters of carbon capture subsidies:

1. Carbon capture is necessary to reduce emissions from Canada’s oil and gas sector.

2. The transition to cleaner technology won’t happen overnight.

3. According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), each scenario that keeps the planet below 1.5 C is required Large-scale removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

These responses can be misleading. According to a recent report by the, global fossil fuel production must begin to decline immediately and rapidly to limit long term warming to 1.5 C. UN Environment Program. Investing heavily in unproven, expensive carbon capture technology creates a “moral hazard” that risks prolonging fossil fuel productionNot to reduce it.

Carbon capture: The risks and the costs

Putting more public money into carbon capture is like throwing good money after bad. Canadian oil and gas companies already receive federal and provincial subsidies to carbon capture technology. $329 million in 2021 federal budget. Most of Canada’s existing carbon capture pilot projects have largely been funded by governments, including $865 million from Canada and Alberta for Shell’s Quest project, which emits more carbon than it captures.

Carbon capture technology is but one carbon dioxide removal option, and because of its risks and costs, it’s not the preferred option either, according to the IPCC’s Special Report on 1.5 COr in the larger academic literature on climate policy.

Because large-scale carbon dioxide removal faces multiple feasibility constraints, the IPCC recommends “significant near-term emissions reductions and measures to lower energy and land demand.” One of its pathways to limiting global warming to 1.5 C shows that afforestation — planting trees where there were previously none — is the only carbon dioxide removal option required. Under this precautionary scenario, carbon capture and sequestration of fossil-fuel emissions isn’t necessary.

Emissions reductions that are safe and sustainable

This approach of prioritizing emission reductions and relying as much as possible on emissions abatement has broad support Climate policy experts are academics. Reduce and eliminate fossil-fuel use by drastic measuresThis, combined with the enhancement of forest management and land use planning, avoids moral hazard when attempting to entrench a business as usual approach to fossil-fuel usage.

It also requires fewer tradeoffs and offers multiple benefits, such as The restoration of diverse habitats in different landscapes to conserve biodiversity and protect against flooding.. Canada can do better on this front. Although land use and forestry were historically a sink for carbon emissions in the past, they have not been as effective in recent years. Source of carbon emissions since 2015..

These lessons are especially relevant for Canadian climate policies. Climate Action Tracker, an independent think tank based in Germany, rates Canada’s climate policy as “highly insufficient overall,” with its current policies in line with a destructive 4 C of global warming. It notes that “for every step forward, Canada also seems to take two steps back.”

As Canada creates its First plan to reduce emissionsBelow the Canadian Net Zero Emissions Accountability Act, an important first step toward aligning its policies with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 C temperature limit, Canada cannot afford to take another two steps back by further investing in an unproven “Magic technology” and You risk further carbon lock-in.