Soon, the federal government will be releasing its climate plan for 2035 to track Canada’s progress in the race to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.
However, the “net” in net-zero — which refers to permanent removal of carbon to counterbalance any remaining emissions by 2050 needed to actually reach net-zero – is vague and risks inaction.
This is why the independent think tank I run, Carbon Removal Canada, recently penned an open letter with 12 other environmental organizations and members of the carbon removal industry. We are calling on the Canadian government to hold a public consultation on setting a target for megatonnes of carbon removed from the atmosphere, as part of their climate plan for 2035 — in addition to targets for emissions reduction.
Environmentalists sometimes worry that carbon removal projects exist just to delay the transition away from fossil fuels. I want to put some of these concerns to bed directly. Carbon removal is not and should not become an excuse to avoid aggressively reducing emissions.
First, we must clearly define carbon removal, as it is different from carbon capture. Carbon capture technology stops carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere at their source, such as a cement plant, which allows companies to claim carbon neutrality because they capture carbon as they emit it.
Carbon removal methods, on the other hand, focus on taking out carbon emissions that are already in the atmosphere, including those that have lingered in the air for centuries. As a result, carbon removal allows for net-negative emissions, where more carbon is taken out of the atmosphere than emitted.
Succinctly, carbon capture operates as a preventative measure for carbon emissions, while carbon removal aims for restoration of the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that carbon removal is necessary for the world to even reach net-zero. We need to reduce new emissions and remove existing emissions simultaneously, plain and simple.
There are activities, such as those in the industrial and agricultural sectors that are still difficult to decarbonize. At last count, about 20 per cent of emissions are coming from non-fossil fuel sources. Rather than villainizing the people in those sectors as they try to find solutions — we must all work together.
This is where carbon removal can come into play to help address the residual emissions left from necessary activities like making cement and steel, as we transition lower hanging fruit to clean energy sources as soon as possible.
To concerns that better carbon removal technology would just become an excuse for continued emissions, strong policy can keep its usage in check. Dual targets would act as accountability for carbon removal and make sure it is used to address difficult-to-decarbonize activities only, while we continue to rapidly reduce emissions across the rest of the economy. As such, Canada’s climate plan should include both emissions reductions and carbon removal targets.
There are also concerns regarding how Canadian carbon removal companies are calling for more government investment. To be clear, the ultimate goal is to have polluters pay to clean up their emissions. Although the government is a polluter itself, there will need to be private sector investment in carbon removal as well.
Unfortunately, industry is usually hesitant to pay for public goods, unless they can confirm the investment is highly effective. In the meantime, public dollars would play a catalytic role for accelerating innovation and maturing the technologies, so they can be incorporated into regulated industries where polluters pay for carbon removal.
There is more than one way to mitigate the effects of the climate crisis, and we need to take action using all the tools available to us. Global compliance markets (primarily led by government policy) are valued at USD$800 billion in 2023.
These industrial carbon-pricing systems can pay for carbon removal in the long term, but we need the government to catalyze innovation in the field and set a high bar for responsibly developing this technology, before it is mature enough for compliance markets to ensure polluters are paying for its large scale rollout.
When it comes to major climate infrastructure investment, people are hesitant because they want big results, immediately. This is unrealistic. It took years for the world to get to this point in the climate crisis, it will similarly take us time to recover from the damage. The carbon removal sector is innovating to clean up emissions — and dual targets of both cutting emissions and cleaning them up will ensure carbon removal is only used as a force for good.
Na’im Merchant is the co-founder and executive director of Carbon Removal Canada.
Comments
Yes, we must capture carbon, but with nature-based solutions (regenerative agriculture, forestry, wetlands restoration, etc.). These solutions are cheaper, better-known and more operation-ready that carbon capture technologies that, for the most part, have yet to prove their profitability and their might.
In theory, to remove carbon is a great idea. But, to make a significant dent in the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere, we must remove billions of tonnes!
Presently, there is approx 420 parts per millions(ppm) of carbon in the air. To remove those billions of tonnes of CO2, we must filter how many trillions of tonnes of air???
A couple of comments:
You: "We need to reduce new emissions."
Me: YES, EXACTLY. It doesn't matter how much carbon we "capture" or "remove" if we're still spewing billions of tons of CO2 every year. Call them nega-tonnes (after the Lovins's) or whatever, but they can't be spewed.
YOU: "Rather than villainizing the people in those sectors as they try to find solutions — we must all work together."
ME: C'mon, we don't "villainize" the people working in those sectors. We villainize — and rightly — those deeply profiting off those sectors.
YOU: "... to help address the residual emissions left from necessary activities like making cement and steel ...."
ME: We really need to start imagining, envisioning and creating a world that isn't based on concrete and steel being "necessary." Besides the enormous emissions from their manufacture, concrete and steel are a huge contributor to our species' disconnection from the rest of Nature, which is a huge cause of the problems we're facing.
If it looks like a boondoggle, sinks like a boondoggle, and quacks like a boondoggle, then it probably is a boondoggle.
Merchant: "Carbon Removal Canada, recently penned an open letter with 12 other environmental organizations and members of the carbon removal industry."
Notably, this group includes not a single garden-variety ENGO. Nearly all, if not all, ENGOs oppose government-funded carbon capture in the O&G industry. Presumably, few, if any, support the carbon capture/removal industry's dreams of striking it rich on government subsidies. Otherwise, they would have signed Mr. Merchant's letter.
Clean Prosperity is a right-wing economic and climate change think tank advocating market solutions for climate change — except in the case of CCS, which they call on government to subsidize.
So much for the market.
Unlike most ENGOs and the 400+ scientists and academics who signed an open letter in January 2022 advising against federal support for carbon capture (CCS) in the O&G sector, the largely corporate-sponsored Pembina Institute has long supported both carbon capture in Canada's O&G sector and massive public subsidies to fund it.
Former Pembina director, self-styled "pragmatic environmentalist", Ed Whittingham is an industry collaborator and climate contrarian -- on the wrong side of many climate issues and bad deals with industry. His advocacy for false climate plans and new oilsands pipelines puts him in opposition to IPCC and IEA reports. Not only does he support carbon capture for O&G, he also supports carbon capture for enhanced oil recovery (EOR).
The same Pembina Institute has long promoted oxymoronic "responsible oilsands development". And collaborates with industry on failed climate plans.
"Responsible oilsands development" is brilliant marketing, supreme greenwashing, and utterly meaningless.
Largely funded by corporate Canada, including Big Oil companies and the Big Banks that back them, the Pembina Institute serves industry as a controlled opposition group.
Pembina's participation in industry's deceptions is unfathomable and inexcusable.
Former Pembina director, self-styled "pragmatic environmentalist", Ed Whittingham is an industry collaborator and climate contrarian -- on the wrong side of many climate issues and bad deals with industry. His advocacy for false climate plans and new oilsands pipelines puts him in opposition to IPCC and IEA reports. Not only does he support carbon capture for O&G, he also supports carbon capture for enhanced oil recovery (EOR).
Together with Clean Prosperity's Michael Bernstein, in 2022 Whittingham wrote a rebuttal to the academics' letter in the National Observer advocating for CCUS.
"Rejecting carbon capture risks increasing emissions. Here's why" (National Observer, 2022)
Climate activists should wish them every failure.
Letter from Academics, 2022
"Effective solutions to achieve deep emission reductions in the next decade along a pathway to zero emissions are already at hand, including renewable energy, electrification and energy efficiency. Funding CCUS diverts resources from these proven, more cost effective solutions that are available on the timeframes required to mitigate climate change.
"Despite decades of research, CCUS is neither economically sound nor proven at scale, with a terrible track record and limited potential to deliver significant, cost-effective emissions reductions.
"…Moreover, CCUS remains prohibitively expensive, while the costs of renewables have plummeted to the point that they are cheaper than fossil fuels. So unsurprisingly, over 80% of CCUS projects in the United States have failed.
"… Put simply, rather than replacing fossil fuels, carbon capture prolongs our dependence on them at a time when preventing catastrophic climate change requires winding down fossil fuel use. Relying on CCUS preserves status quo fossil fuel development, which must be curtailed to meet global climate commitments. Introducing a tax credit for CCUS for the energy sector will lock-in continued dependence on Canada's largest and most rapidly growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.
"… Deploying CCUS at any climate-relevant scale, carried out within the short timeframe we have to avert climate catastrophe without posing substantial risks to communities on the frontlines of the buildout, is a pipe dream."
Much the same for DAC.
CCS is required only in hard-to-decarbonize sectors like cement and steel. In the energy industry, energy alternatives that don't bake the planet already exist.
We do not need another industry milking government for endless subsidies.
Carbon capture (CCS) for the O&G industry is a scam designed to perpetuate fossil fuels. Direct air capture (DAC) projects are an even bigger boondoggle.
Inefficient and expensive carbon capture works only for concentrated industrial waste streams. Direct air capture (DAC) is even less practical. Because 410+ ppm CO2 is much more dilute, the challenge to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is much harder and more energy intensive.
Audrey Mascarenhas, president and chief executive of Questor Technology, a company that aims to eliminate methane emissions from flaring: "So in Canada, because we focused [our efforts] on CO2, and we spent a lot of time trying to figure out how we can remove CO2 and turn it into something useful or sequester it. That is expensive, because CO2 in the atmosphere has kind of reached its maximum state of randomness or entropy. So when you try and take it out of the atmosphere it's like trying to reverse gravity, you're going to take energy to do it. So if you approach climate change from just the CO2 part, you're doing the toughest thing first and yes, it is expensive." (Down to Business podcast, Financial Post)
Why invest scarce public resources in CCS or DAC, when there are far more cost-effective climate solutions available? Cheaper ways to cut more emissions. CCS is hugely inefficient, highly energy-intensive, and expensive. Captures a tiny fraction of emissions — only from large emitters. Huge opportunity costs. DAC is even worse.
Invest the same scarce resources in public transit, energy efficiency and conservation, building retrofits, smart urban design, and renewables, and we can cut far more emissions.
"There is more than one way to mitigate the effects of the climate crisis, and we need to take action using all the tools available to us."
Like all slogans, "Every tool in the toolbox" is intended to bypass critical thinking. Obvious fallacy.
No, we do not use every tool in the toolbox, even in an emergency. We use the right tools. The tools most suited to the job. The most efficient tools. Where resources are scarce, we use the cheapest tools that do the job most economically. Definitely avoid tools that prolong the problem or make it worse.
When the river is in flood, we use sandbags. Rocks and stones. Not paper towels, expensive sofa cushions, or chicken wire.
Get the biggest bang for our climate buck. Cost is a key consideration for climate because those same dollars spent more wisely could achieve far greater emissions reductions.
Given our limited resources, we should rely on the most efficient, least costly tools in the toolbox. Carbon pricing chief among them. Carbon pricing is not only the most efficient tool, but it is also technology agnostic.
"Dual targets would act as accountability for carbon removal and make sure it is used to address difficult-to-decarbonize activities only, while we continue to rapidly reduce emissions across the rest of the economy."
Mr. Merchant is confused. Carbon removal (DAC) removes carbon already in the atmosphere, regardless of source, that does not target or mitigate emissions from a particular industry or activity. There is no such thing as DAC for the cement, steel, or oil industry. DAC is an external process that removes emissions after the fact.
As Merchant explained above: "Carbon removal methods, on the other hand, focus on taking out carbon emissions that are already in the atmosphere, including those that have lingered in the air for centuries."
Carbon capture (CCS) is the process that applies to concentrated CO2 waste streams in difficult-to-decarbonize activities and industries.
"Don't Fall for Big Oil's Carbon Capture Deceptions" (Scientific American, 2023)
"Carbon capture technology is a PR fig leaf designed to help Big Oil delay the phaseout of fossil fuels
"… First, industrial carbon capture projects are far too small to matter. Even after decades of investment, research and development, today's largest carbon capture projects only remove a few seconds' worth of our yearly GHG emissions. And even the planned Regional Direct Air Capture Hubs the Dept of Energy is supporting will only be able to capture one million metric tonnes of CO2 every year; last year, the world emitted 40.5 billion.
"Second, they are far too expensive, costing thousands of dollars for every ton of CO2 removed. Other climate solutions, including improving energy efficiency, deploying renewable energy sources and addressing emissions in agriculture and industrial sectors, are far more cost-effective. Industrial carbon removal costs at least $1,000 per tonne removed; many other climate solutions either have costs lower than $10 per ton, and some have negative costs, saving money immediately.
"Third, these industrial carbon removal techniques also consume excessive amounts of energy, which present enormous challenges to scalability. If we power carbon capture projects with CO2-spewing fossil fuels, the projects lose much of their proposed climate benefit. Moreover, powering them with renewable or nuclear energy sources would provide far less climate benefit than using that energy to directly displace fossil fuels.
"Industrial carbon capture also does nothing to reduce the health damage caused by fossil fuels. Most notably, sucking CO2 out of the air fails to relieve the tremendous air pollution effects of burning fossil fuels, which cause 8–9 million people to die prematurely each year.
"… More fundamentally, the biggest problem with industrial carbon capture schemes is that they are largely a ploy by Big Oil to delay action to phase out fossil fuels. These projects give fossil fuel companies a greenwashing boost, cloaking pollution underneath fake environmental responsibility, helping them claim that they are taking serious climate action, all the while continuing to build out additional fossil fuel infrastructure and rake in trillions in profits. … Carbon capture is being used to distract the world from rapidly phasing out fossil fuels, all on the taxpayer's dime."
From Carbon Removal Canada open letter:
"For example, the UK’s Net-Zero Strategy established a target of 5 megatonnes of carbon removal capacity by 2030, 23 megatonnes by 2035, and more than 75 megatonnes by 2050. Similarly, the EU Commission has recently published a strategy, for discussion, that would set a target of 400 megatonnes of carbon removal per year by 2040."
Out of context, these seem like large numbers.
Until you realize global man-made CO2 emissions are on the order of 40,000 megatonnes (= 40 Gt), and still rising.
Even capturing 1000 megatonnes (Mt) would account for only 2.5% of global emissions.
We would need to capture 40 times that amount just to nullify/offset our annual emissions.
We would need even more carbon removal capacity to start reducing CO2 already in the atmosphere.
Priorities, people. Until we get our emissions under control, there is little point spending untold billions on energy-intensive systems that capture a tiny fraction of emissions.
Jonathan Foley of Project Drawdown is well-established as the global expert on reducing global warming and reestablishing a healthy climate. In this talk, ted.com/talks/jonathan_foley_the_climate_solutions_worth_funding_now, he clearly identifies a need for carbon removal but notes that it only contributes 4% of the entire solution, and is not extremely urgent whereas reducing fossil fuel consumption is. Yes, carbon removal is important, in the long term. But it is not even close to being hand-in-hand with the need for emissions reductions. We desperately need "big results, immediately" and, for now, carbon removal is a dangerous distraction.