In the long debate over climate change, there have been two broad rivers of thought. The dominant stream of thought held by governments, NGOs and the United Nations is that the “solution” to climate change lies in radical curtailment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at any cost. The current fixation is to bring global GHG emissions to “net zero” by 2050.
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
Don't have an account? Create Account
The other stream of thought, held mainly by energy firms that recognize climate risk and the need to prevent atmospheric GHG buildup, is that the answer lies in technologies such as “carbon capture” and storage where CO2 emissions from industrial processes can be captured and piped into underground reservoirs and (in theory) not affect the climate. A related concept is the direct air capture of CO2 where CO2 is either sequestered underground or bound up into solids such as limestone. Climate alarmists deride these ideas in part because they would help keep the oil and gas industry in business.
Not surprisingly, just before last month’s COP28 UN climate-change conference, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released a report that relegates carbon capture and storage to the very fringes of climate-change action in favour of a polite request that the oil and gas sector basically embrace its own extinction.
Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.
By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.
A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.
The next issue of The Winnipeg Sun's Daily Headline News will soon be in your inbox.
We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again
On carbon capture and storage, Fatih Birol, IEA executive director, observes that if “oil and natural gas consumption were to evolve as projected under today’s policy settings, limiting the temperature rise to 1.5C would require an entirely inconceivable 32 billion tonnes of carbon captured for utilization or storage by 2050, including 23 billion tonnes via direct air capture. The amount of electricity needed to power these technologies would be greater than the entire world’s electricity demand today.”
Birol’s right — it’s, indeed, fantastical to believe in such levels of carbon capture and storage deployed over 25 years or so. But the IEA’s preferred approach for controlling GHG emissions is equally fantastical — specifically, that the oil and gas sector stops investing in oil/gas and shifts to non-carbon energy production (again, essentially industry suicide). Birol notes that “producers looking to align with the aims of the Paris Agreement would need to put 50% of their capital expenditures towards clean energy projects by 2030, on top of the investment required to reduce emissions from their own operations.”
According to the IEA, the oil and gas sector’s current investments in clean energy comprise only 2.5% of total capital spending, so hitting 50% would require 20-fold growth in seven years.
While I agree with the IEA’s derision of carbon capture and storage (I have long been skeptical of the idea), Birol’s suggestion that a major sector of the global economy will put itself out of business so the world can achieve the UN’s arbitrary target of limiting global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels is equally off base.
The world will need fossil fuels for many decades to fuel the economic growth that societies require to meet their basic needs. Rather than destroying the global economy by extinguishing GHG emissions, the IEA and others should reconsider their completely implausible timelines and extremist approach and instead help the world prepare to adapt to a potentially warmer climate. Asking the attendees at COP28, which included Canada’s environment minister, to change their approach is at least as realistic as asking the oil and gas industry — and countries dependent on oil and gas — to embrace their own extinction.
Kenneth Green is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.
Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.
GREEN: Climate elites want oil and gas sector to embrace own extinction
9
0
03.01.2024
In the long debate over climate change, there have been two broad rivers of thought. The dominant stream of thought held by governments, NGOs and the United Nations is that the “solution” to climate change lies in radical curtailment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at any cost. The current fixation is to bring global GHG emissions to “net zero” by 2050.
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
Don't have an account? Create Account
The other stream of thought, held mainly by energy firms that recognize climate risk and the need to prevent atmospheric GHG buildup, is that the answer lies in technologies such as “carbon capture” and storage where CO2 emissions from industrial processes can be captured and piped into underground reservoirs and (in theory) not affect the climate. A related concept is the direct air capture of CO2 where CO2 is either sequestered underground or bound up into solids such as limestone. Climate alarmists deride these ideas in part because they would help keep the oil and gas........
© Winnipeg Sun
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Rachel Marsden
Donald Low
Bradley Blankenship
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
Michael Kwet
