Close Menu
    Politik

    Die Regierung von Carney wusste, dass die Kohlenstoffabscheidung „sehr begrenzt“ war, wie Dokumente zeigen

    Share.
    View 8 Comments

    8 Kommentare

    1. Upset-Government-856 on

      Everyone knows carbon capture is just green washing bullshit.

      If, you, the person reading this didn’t know, then you’re the last person on earth to know. Sorry.

    2. Snurgisdr on

      So does most everyone else. It‘s hard to see this as an act in good faith. If my intention were to see this actually work, I’d make production permits conditional on a maximum carbon release, and leave the market to figure out how or if that could be done. As it is, it looks like a bit of performance for an ignorant audience combined with an additional subsidy for foreign oil companies.

    3. StilesLong on

      He thing with CCUS is that there are many cheaper, better ways to reduce our CO2 emissions that could be spun up right now. Why not pursue those first and foremost, with CCUS as an afterthought?

      The answer, of course, is because O&G companies would be left with useless assets, which feels appropriate to me. Fuck up the planet? You should pay for it.

    4. GraveDiggingCynic on

      It’s a scam. If you have enough energy to capture sufficient amounts of CO2 to make any difference, you have solved the energy problem and don’t need to burn fossil fuels at all.

    5. future-archaeology42 on

      I don’t really understand what this article is saying. Unless I’m missing it, all it says is that the government had “knowledge gaps”. We know carbon capture as a technology works – there are CCS projects currently operating in Canada and there are US facilities that use CCS to produce low CI fuels that qualify under Canadian emissions reduction programs. Whether it’s the most economically efficient way to reduce emissions warrants discussion, but (1) that’s probably the reason for the extension of the credit, and (2) Carney has an “all of the above” approach to climate change (and is a pragmatist when it comes to balancing climate goals with broader economic goals) and many potential solutions do require government support to get off the ground, just as solar and wind do.

      Now that I think about it, the author is probably being deliberately vague because he knows it’ll anger his target audience and drive engagement.

    6. nonamee9455 on

      We will need to do carbon capture eventually. Let’s say we go 100% renewable energy tomorrow, we will still need to undo the damage we’ve done by removing carbon from the atmosphere. But ya for now there are way better things we can do for the environment than carbon capture.

    Leave A Reply