Carbon capture: A crucial tool or misguided distraction in climate fight?

Carbon solutions can play a vital role in reducing emissions, especially in hard-to-abate sectors, while supporting economic stability and energy security.

In 2015, I had a memorable conversation with environmental activist Tzeporah Berman while walking along the Burrard Inlet shoreline for the taping of a CBC program. We strolled and shared with listeners our thoughts on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, a project then mired in controversy. Despite the intense public debate and legitimate fears of a maritime oil spill, I disagreed with Ms. Berman's assertion that "this pipeline will never be built." To me, it was clear that a project of such national significance, endorsed by both federal authorities and the courts, was destined to move forward.

Time has proven that viewpoint correct. Not only was Trans Mountain built, but it also incorporated multiple layers of safety enhancements, benefitting not just oil tankers but the broader maritime industry. First Nations' concerns were integrated into safety protocols, and new technologies were deployed to monitor the pipeline infrastructure, ensuring any issues could be detected and addressed instantly. The outcome was a project that met its many conditions and is now operational.

I’ve given careful thought to her concerns (in the Globe and Mail today, but behind a paywall) about another topic, also in the energy space. It is the viewpoint that carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is “unproven”, unworthy, and opposed by leading international authorities.?

While the urgency of addressing fossil fuel production and transitioning to renewable energy is undeniable, I must respectfully offer a different perspective on carbon capture, informed by both past experiences and current realities.

When Ms. Berman suggests that carbon capture projects should not be built, my reaction is one of disappointment and challenge. Firstly, I'm disappointed by her misrepresentation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) views. At COP28 in Dubai, which we both attended last November, the final stocktake document endorsed "accelerating zero- and low-emission technologies, including, inter alia, renewables, nuclear, abatement and removal technologies such as carbon capture and utilization and storage, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors." This unambiguous, unanimous statement of all the nations involved in the climate talks is far from a disavowal of carbon capture; rather, it is a clear endorsement.

Moreover, Ms. Berman overlooks the success of projects like Shell's Quest in Edmonton (which is actually described as a top-performing carbon capture project in the very article that she links to as proof that it has not been a success). In fact, in its first five years, Quest captured and safely stored five million tonnes of CO2, equivalent to the annual emissions of 1.25 million cars. This CO2 would otherwise have contributed to the climate crisis. Imagine if the "this project will never be built" mentality had prevailed.

The International Energy Agency's Net Zero by 2050 roadmap includes a significant role for carbon capture, projecting it could contribute about 15% of the cumulative emissions reductions needed to reach net zero. The IEA sees CCS not as a replacement for other strategies but as a crucial complement. Focusing solely on cutting production without considering technological solutions risks economic disruption and energy security challenges.

Many hard-to-abate sectors like cement and steel production currently lack viable alternatives to fossil fuels. Carbon capture could play a critical role in decarbonizing these industries while alternatives are developed.?

For instance, Heidelberg Materials is working on a project in Edmonton to capture one million tonnes of CO2 annually from its cement production. If the preferred alternative is to halt cement production altogether, we face the question: How will we build the infrastructure needed for a sustainable future, from homes to wind turbines?

Government investment in carbon capture, whether small-scale or large-scale like the Pathways Alliance project, can accelerate development and reduce costs, similar to the public investments that have scaled up solar, wind, battery manufacturing and electric vehicles. A diverse portfolio of solutions, including both supply-side and demand-side measures, provides more flexibility and resilience in addressing climate change. Over-relying on any single approach increases risk.

Carbon capture is just one part of the rapidly emerging carbon solutions space. Decarbonization technologies aim to remove, transform, and utilize carbon, as well as prevent its emission in the first place. Industrial carbon pricing policies are designed to stimulate investment in these solutions, making pollution more expensive and efficient processes more attractive. By letting markets decide, we harness the collective ingenuity and resources of businesses and entrepreneurs to tackle climate change, potentially leading to more efficient and effective outcomes than top-down regulatory approaches alone.?

When an industry provides outsize contributions to the economy, including large public revenues, there is additional motivation to ensure that it meets its challenges while preserving the benefits.???

While carbon capture should not be seen as a silver bullet or an excuse for irresponsible fossil fuel expansion, it can play a constructive role in a broader climate strategy that includes renewable energy growth, energy efficiency, and the most efficient use of fossil fuels.?

Renewables are being expanded rapidly but also traditional sources increase every year as the Global South aspires to western standards of living.?

In the United States, the power needs of A.I. are so extreme that data farms are now tapping directly into natural gas pipelines to fuel their own power plants. Leaving the emissions of those power plants free to escape into the atmosphere, which is where Ms. Berman’s logic leads us, does not feel like the right way to go.

There is a dawning realization that “transition” isn’t the right term to describe what is happening today in the use of energy. It’s really an energy addition, not an energy transition. This being so, it’s obvious that the demands of the climate crisis mean we can’t leave tools in the toolbox. Policy decisions should be guided by careful analysis of costs, benefits, and effectiveness, rather than by rejecting specific technologies outright. It’s time to leverage all available solutions.?

We should unite in favor of tools that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, capture and store CO2 before it reaches the atmosphere, find novel uses for captured carbon, and solve for industries that struggle to decarbonize.?

In the final analysis, if the claim is that carbon management solutions “will never be built”, my response is that they must be built – because it is the right thing to do.