• About
    • Which Energy Mix is this?
  • Climate News Network Archive
  • Contact
The climate news that makes a difference.
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
  FEATURED
Repsol Abandons Plan to Ship Canadian LNG to Europe March 17, 2023
Biden Approves $8B Oil Extraction Plan in Ecologically Sensitive Alaska March 14, 2023
U.S. Solar Developers Scramble after Silicon Valley Bank Collapse March 14, 2023
$30.9B Price Tag Makes Trans Mountain Pipeline a ‘Catastrophic Boondoggle’ March 14, 2023
UN Buys Tanker, But Funding Gap Could Scuttle Plan to Salvage Oil from ‘Floating Time Bomb’ March 9, 2023
Next
Prev

Exotic Carbon Capture Techniques Prop Up Fossil Interests, Aren’t Needed to Hit 1.5°C, New Study Asserts

February 19, 2019
Reading time: 3 minutes

Pexels

Pexels

67
SHARES
 

The urgency and scope of the climate crisis are being needlessly exploited to drive fringe ideas like carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM) from the margins to the mainstream, according to a hard-hitting report issued last week by the Washington-based Center for International Environmental Law and Berlin’s Heinrich Böell Foundation.

“Almost all geoengineering proposals serve to entrench and benefit fossil fuel interests rather than solve the climate crisis,” the report concludes. “By promoting the development of new fossil fuels and costly fossil infrastructure, by diverting resources away from proven mitigation strategies to costly boondoggles, and by sustaining the myth that meaningful climate action can be safely delayed or narrowly constrained, geoengineering threatens to undermine real solutions at the time when they are most urgently needed.”

  • Concise headlines. Original content. Timely news and views from a select group of opinion leaders. Special extras.
  • Everything you need, nothing you don’t.
  • The Weekender: The climate news you need.
Subscribe

In a joint release, the two organizations contend that:

  • Enhanced oil recovery would be the ultimate beneficiary of 85% of U.S. subsidies for carbon capture and storage (CCS) and Direct Air Capture (DAC) technologies.
  • CCS proponents believe the technology could increase coal consumption by 40% and lead to the extraction of 923 million additional barrels of oil, in the U.S. alone, by 2040.
  • Direct Air Capture, notwithstanding the glowing media it’s received in recent months, is a highly energy-intensive technology that “will be used primarily to produce hydrocarbon fuels that will themselves be burned, resulting in either net carbon emissions or massive diversions of renewable energy for uncertain benefits while simultaneously slowing the transition from internal combustion engines.”
  • Fossil industry advocates “openly believe CCS and CDR are essential to save coal, ensure the future of oil and gas, and ‘unlock’ unburnable carbon.”
  • Oil companies, in turn, are relying on carbon dioxide removal to justify continued heavy reliance on oil and gas at least until 2100, despite the IPCC’s 2030 deadline to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 45%.
  • Proponents of one of the most controversial geoengineering methods, Solar Radiation Management, have for decades “cited the potential to delay or minimize climate mitigation measures as a primary justification for its use.” They assume countries “will inject sulphate or other aerosols into the skies for decades to centuries to come—and deploy CDR to bring emissions back down.”

The report suggests geoengineering is becoming the new climate denial as earlier forms are discredited, and affirms that humanity “must and can keep warming below 1.5°C”, without relying on geoengineering.

“Confronting the challenge of climate change is not a matter of future technology, but present political will and economic investment,” the report states. “While most proposed approaches to CDR and SRM remain speculative, the technologies we need to reduce emissions, transform our economy, and confront the climate crisis are available, proven, and scalable.”

The report suggests powerful industry influences are keeping the advocacy for CCS and CDR afloat, and cites a scenario in the IPCC’s 1.5°C pathways report that avoids “speculative” CDR technologies while “making more limited use of nature-based carbon reductions achieved through afforestation, reforestation, forest conservation, and land use.” CIEL and Böell stress that “these pathways place an early, heavy priority on reducing energy demand and rapidly phasing out fossil fuels. “

And the two organizations assess alternatives to geoengineering as well as its serious drawbacks. They note that renewable energy is already “eliminating the rationale” for coal and natural gas in electricity production, with the pace of renewables deployment consistently exceeding official forecasts. The same trend applies to transportation, and not just electric cars—India is accelerating the electrification of two-wheel vehicles that deliver most of its mobility, China has been going all-in on electric buses, and “early innovators in the electric truck space [are] now racing against startups and global manufacturers alike to bring fleets of battery electric trucks to both long-haul and short-haul markets.”

In contrast to the exotic, iffy technologies receiving the lion’s share of the attention and subsidy support, “low-tech, win-win approaches to climate mitigation and carbon removal are ready to be scaled up,” CIEL and Böell declare. They cite IPCC comments on “the enhancement of terrestrial and coastal carbon storage in plants and soils such as afforestation and reforestation, soil carbon enhancement, and other conservation, restoration, and management options for natural and managed land, and coastal ecosystems.”



in Auto & Alternative Vehicles, Batteries / Storage, CCS & Negative Emissions, China, Cities & Communities, Coal, COP Conferences, Ending Emissions, Energy / Carbon Pricing & Economics, Energy Subsidies, First Peoples, Forests & Deforestation, India, International Agencies & Studies, Oceans, Oil & Gas, Soil & Natural Sequestration, Supply Chains & Consumption, United States

The latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Related Posts

U.S. Bureau of Land Management/flickr
Oil & Gas

Biden Approves $8B Oil Extraction Plan in Ecologically Sensitive Alaska

March 14, 2023
130
David Dodge, Green Energy Futures/flickr
Community Climate Finance

U.S. Solar Developers Scramble after Silicon Valley Bank Collapse

March 14, 2023
464
EcoAnalytics
Media, Messaging, & Public Opinion

Canadians Want Strong Emissions Cap Regulations, Not More Missed Targets

March 14, 2023
136

Comments 1

  1. Peter Sircom Bromley says:
    4 years ago

    This article suggests atmospheric carbon dioxide removal, using direct air capture technology, is some kind of exotic geoengineering stunt that encourages continued fossil fuel combustion and climate denial. This is an outdated and misinformed argument.

    In fact, carbon dioxide removal will be essential to preventing catastrophic climate change. It is a pollution cleanup and disposal measure that needs rapid, worldwide implementation. Essentially, it is restorative. To argue otherwise is its own kind of denial and a misreading of the problem at hand.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Trending Stories

David Dodge, Green Energy Futures/flickr

U.S. Solar Developers Scramble after Silicon Valley Bank Collapse

March 14, 2023
464
Environmental Defence Canada/flickr

Repsol Abandons Plan to Ship Canadian LNG to Europe

March 18, 2023
248
Joshua Doubek/Wikipedia

No New Jobs Came from Alberta’s $4B ‘Job Creation’ Tax Cut for Big Oil

October 6, 2022
851
Rebecca Bollwitt/flickr

Fossils Stay ‘Oily’, Gibsons Sues Big Oil, U.S. Clean Energy Booms, EU Pushes Fossil Phaseout, and Fukushima Disaster was ‘No Accident’

March 14, 2023
210
Behrat/Wikimedia Commons

Hawaii Firm Turns Home Water Heaters into Grid Batteries

March 14, 2023
468
NTSB

Ohio Train Derailment, Toxic Chemical Spill Renews Fears Over Canada-U.S. Rail Safety

March 8, 2023
1.4k

Recent Posts

U.S. Bureau of Land Management/flickr

Biden Approves $8B Oil Extraction Plan in Ecologically Sensitive Alaska

March 14, 2023
130
EcoAnalytics

Canadians Want Strong Emissions Cap Regulations, Not More Missed Targets

March 14, 2023
136
U.S. National Transportation Safety Board/flickr

$30.9B Price Tag Makes Trans Mountain Pipeline a ‘Catastrophic Boondoggle’

March 14, 2023
254
Raysonho/wikimedia commons

Purolator Pledges $1B to Electrify Last-Mile Delivery

March 14, 2023
90
United Nations

UN Buys Tanker, But Funding Gap Could Scuttle Plan to Salvage Oil from ‘Floating Time Bomb’

March 10, 2023
97
Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons

Biden Cuts Fossil Subsidies, But Oil and Gas Still Lines Up for Billions

March 10, 2023
192
Next Post

Biggest animals face extinction for food

The Energy Mix - The climate news you need

Copyright 2023 © Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Copyright
  • Cookie Policy

Proudly partnering with…

scf_withtagline
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}