Experts gathered at the Munk Centre on Wednesday morning to discuss the merits of carbon capture and storage, which has emerged in the past several years as a key strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Professors, policy wonks, and industry representatives responded to a conference paper titled “Burying Carbon Dioxide in Underground Saline Aquifers: Political Folly or Climate Change Fix?”
Carbon capture and storage, known as CCS, involves capturing carbon dioxide and injecting it into rock formations deep inside the earth. The federal government has earmarked $140 million for eight CCS projects, and Alberta has allotted $2 billion to build three CCS plants.
“Instead of buying us time to find alternative sources of clean energy, CCS is buying politicians time to avoid making tough, unpopular decisions,” declared Graham Thomson, the author of the paper and a columnist for the Edmonton Journal. Thomson argued that CCS is too risky, expensive, and dangerous at its current stage of development to be worth heavy investment. Investing in CCS technology also diverts resources from energy efficiency and delays more durable reforms, Thomson said. He suggested alternative policies, such as systematic reduction of fossil fuel consumption.
Several panellists agreed with Thomson to some degree. “I really don’t think carbon capture and storage is worth the money we plan to spend on it,” said geology professor Andrew Miall.
Fellow geology professor Barbara Sherwood-Lollar warned the audience that fears over CCS’s risks and liabilities could ultimately result in inaction on climate change. “The danger is that if we focus only on what can go wrong, we may be faced with the prospect of doing nothing, and the implications of doing nothing at this point are no less than disastrous,” she said.
Mary Griffiths, a former policy analyst for the sustainability advocacy group Pembina Institute, said CCS was one arrow in the quiver for fighting climate change. Other strategies include energy conservation, low-impact renewable energy, and putting a price on carbon pollution.
Government and industry reps defended CCS. “While water and energy efficiency and renewable energy are important, these alone won’t suffice to meet the increase in demand [due to a rising population],” countered Don Broussard of Lafayette Utilities System, an electric and water company.
Kevin Stringer, director of petroleum resources with Natural Resources Canada, called CCS a crucial component. “Fossil fuels are going to be around for a while, and technology will need to be a solution,” he said. Brent Lakeman of the Alberta Research Council echoed Stringer’s support, saying that uncertainties exist with any technology deployed to address climate change. “CCS is still in its infancy,” he said.
Emily Rochon of Greenpeace International attacked the credibility of CCS advocates like Stringer and Lakeman, saying that they have a vested interest in CSS because they would be out of a job if it doesn’t work.
“CCS is like a nicotine patch for a smoker. What we are trying to do is continue to get our fix and hope that we don’t get cancer,” she remarked, to the loudest applause of the day.
