this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
17 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7203 readers
153 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Universities

💵 Finance / Shopping

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
17
Public funds push carbon capture projects forward (www.nationalobserver.com)
submitted 4 months ago by streetfestival@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

“[Carbon capture] is a dangerous distraction driven by the same big polluters who have caused the climate emergency,” Julia Levin, associate director of national climate for Environmental Defence, told Canada’s National Observer in a phone interview.

This situation is “especially frustrating because Strathcona has no intention of paying a single dime between getting 50 per cent of their capital costs covered by the investment tax credit and 50 per cent covered by the Canada Growth Fund,” Levin said.

“Why are taxpayers covering the full cost of one of the country's largest oil producers to continue to extract more oil?”

top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Carbon capture is Silicon Valley bullshit. We need to address emissions, not hope for a magic bullet.

Fund public transit, tax the shit out of cars, suspend oil extraction.

We need to act decisively because we waited too long.

[–] Zoot@reddthat.com 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In the long run won't we need Carbon Capture to some extent? Yeah it won't be for a long while - it would need to be done once we're on fully renewable power. So while I whole heartedly agree, this money needs to go towards making the latter possible, won't this atleast provide some positive aspect many years down the road?

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

In the long run there may very well be some value - but it'll take us an extremely long time to out do those masters of carbon capture... trees.

Grow a forest, bury it under ground, repeat.

You'll capture a whole lot of carbon that way!

But, and even easier approach is just not digging up coal because that is highly efficient captured carbon that we could just leave captured.

At the end of the day, folks are burning coal for power. It is staggeringly inefficient to use coal power to capture carbon, it is (currently) quite inefficient to use solar power to capture carbon.

It is so much fucking easier to just leave it in the ground.