We need CO2 removal to save the planet, but tax subsidies aren’t the right way – National Observer

A large majority of CO2 emissions come from burning fossil fuels for energy that provides heat, electricity, and transportation.

Reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations below the level they are at today is vital to achieving climate stability, so removing CO2 from the atmosphere and permanently storing it is non-optional in the fight against climate change.

Even if we turned the taps off on the fossil fuel sector today, the post-industrial global temperature would continue to rise to a new equilibrium.

CDR solutions — such as ocean alkalinity enhancement, soil sequestration, and direct air capture — that demonstrate verifiable net-negativity will need to play some role in the broader climate strategy.

This is why instead of the tax subsidy we advocate for stricter CO2 emission regulation, including Scope 3 emissions .

If under this regulatory environment the adoption of CCUS technology isn’t economical, industries will have to seek out new revenue verticals, like renewable electricity and other projects relevant to the future sustainable economy, since that is their obligation to their shareholders.

Canada already has a set of environmental regulations that the market must respond to and work within — for example, those that deal with wastewater treatment or sulphur dioxide emissions.

Providing a tax credit will only divert revenue from the public coffers that are already strained from pandemic spending and extend the timeline in which full electrification using renewable sources can be achieved.

Offering a tax-incentive to offset the economic impact of policies that are meant to motivate Canada’s energy transition goes against meeting our climate goals.

Renewable energy investment far exceeds fossil fuel investment — which suggests that fossil fuel companies are not leading the charge in renewables.

Carbon Tracker 2019: “Every oil major is betting heavily against a 1.5 degree C world and investing in projects that are contrary to the Paris goals.” Most oil majors are irrevocably opposed to an energy transition that threatens to impair their profits, strand their assets, and ultimately put them out of business.

Sorry, the final paragraphs should read: The industry’s plan is to “green” fossil fuels, not get off them.

…Read the full story