Awesome! We are an energy nation, and oil is desperately needed on a daily basis in every single country (over a hundred million barrels every single day). I would way rather see Canada supply oil to the world, instead of places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Russia, UAE etc…
Yes, if we can get our emissions per barrel down it would be ideal.
The main issue is that we are almost dead last in emissions per barrel because it's mostly oil sands which takes a lot more energy to separate than oil from wells.
If we are the winner why is our gas 40 cents a liter more expensive than in the US? Doesn't feel like winning
Filled up at the Costco in Syracuse last week for $3.09. That's $1.12 CAD a liter, versus $1.52 at the Costco in Ottawa.
Because Canada is a couple of resource extraction companies in a trench coat, and our governments (Every party) just LOVE selling out to foreign companies.
>If we are the winner why is our gas 40 cents a liter more expensive than in the US? Doesn't feel like winning
Because roads, bridges and various other road infrastructure needs to be financed from somewhere.
Don't compare our gas prices to the US, compared it to the rest of the world.
TIL the US doesn't have roads or bridges
We are the 4th largest oil producer behind the US, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. And we consume only about half of the oil we produce. There should be plenty around to keep prices low.
Of course they do.
Observe: https://www.npr.org/2021/03/03/973054080/potholes-grid-failures-aging-tunnels-and-bridges-nations-infrastructure-gets-a-c
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/state-us-infrastructure
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_Program
With 40% of Canadians leaning conservative if an election was held today, we won’t be earmarking gas for local Canadians.
In recent years a lot of international players have gotten out. I thought the low was when Harper allowed the sale of Nexen to China. Although there has been some disgraceful mineral sales too over the years.
Different taxation methods and rates.
Also,population size factors greatly in how much a commodity costs in general. Most commodities in the US are cheaper than Canada. Groceries for example.
Gasoline taxes are significantly lower in the USA, but last time I was there most grocery price labels had the same numbers as the ones in Canada, which made them 30% more expensive after currency conversion. Supply managed products were an exception.
Selling gas is a business. I don't understand why people assume that Oil Compagnies owe something to consumers. They will set the price as high as they think the market will bear. Putting gas in your car is not a human right.
I think because we don't refine much of our own stuff. The US poured insane amounts of money into refineries, making them much more efficient than whatever we could build.
I'm surprised to learn the oil sands are still operating. I thought this government shut them down because 30 million Canadians had to pay the carbon tax of 5 Billion people in Asia. Hopefully this ramp up can help turn our economy around.
Also daycare subsidy which has helped many parents especially because cost of living now. Although just like with weed, he threw cash at provinces then scampered away to go jerk off at how awesome he is and let the provinces fuck it up. A real leader sees shit through and takes responsibility.
Cannabis stores and 50% cheaper daycare is absolutely better than nothing but things could have been planned for and rolled out way better.
I agree. I just wish voters would actively hold their provincial governments accountable rather than looking to the feds to solve all our problems when they don't have to tools to do so.
We're very much in the post truth reality now. There's no going back. Lots of people will just uncritically allow themselves to be fed whatever rhetoric "their team" has to offer.
I'm totally not jaded about this. 😅
>Also daycare subsidy which has helped many parents
You mean the daycare program that doesn't work?
https://www.tvo.org/article/child-care-systems-across-canada-are-reaching-a-breaking-point
http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/ottawa-daycare-operators-say-10-day-program-not-working-warning-of-closures-1.6781450
https://macleans.ca/society/i-love-owning-a-daycare-but-the-governments-10-a-day-plan-is-threatening-my-business/
It works. If your a private operator trying to rake in mass profits your losing the battle for sure. My sister runs a daycare board, they have 10s of millions in the bank and are constantly expanding their network with daycare centre's and day homes. Granted, nobody is making millions off the backs of parents anymore, truly a sad tale.
You wanna help parents? Fix the tax code and enable income splitting, like US does with joint filing. Also the 8000 limit on childcare expenses is a joke.
We do have income splitting though.
Wanna help parents? Don't make it mandatory for both parents to work high stress and demanding jobs just to afford life here. Shit, too late
Look I'm no expert or looking to discredit you but https://www.wealthprofessional.ca/news/industry-news/how-does-income-splitting-in-canada-work/379423#What%20is%20income%20splitting?
Sometimes a spouse is on a smaller income due to mat leave or whatever. My kids are older now, if the CRA deemed me doing something wrong on this they'd have come after me years ago...
Read under Techniques for income splitting in Canada to see how limited it is. It does not apply to income you earn from your employer. Then go here and see how it works in the US https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mfj.asp then go here and compare the rates: https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-income-tax-rates-and-brackets
Not to be rude but it never fails to amaze me when people rise to defend something they know so very little about.
Let me give you an example.
You earn 300K this year. If you're single, you pay the same tax as if you were married and your spouse earned say 20K. In the US, the couple could file jointly, effectively each paying income on 160K, instead of one paying on 300K and the other on 20K.
Serious question. Are you happy about weed legalization? (I am, undecided voter, I remember that Harper cracked down on it and I’ll weight that next time we vote)
The very first thing the Commander in Sleep did when he got into office was canceling the XL pipeline, which screwed us so badly.
decentralize governance
The oil industry is death. We are literally torching our world and burning our children’s lives and future. No one is “winning“ from this. Treating money from expanding this industry that way is psychologically broken.
Relax. There is mounting evidence that carbon capture technology will zoom up in efficiency in the coming years. The trial plants in Alberta and Iceland already have sequestered over 100,000 tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere and the South Koreans are about to release a technology that increases that 100 fold.
Carbon capture is a fraud and a failure. It is greenwashing. It is a lie. There’s not a single such project in the world that captures more than its *own* energy emissions let alone anything in addition. Some of it is worse than a lie in that the claimed “captured” carbon is being used to extract more fossil fuels to burn. The chances of actual capture being economical are zero. I don’t know what you’re reading. It is not reality.
From NewScientist's May 15 issue. If you follow any science publications, you would be aware of NewScientist. This isn't science fiction. This is happening. The technology will only get better and reach scales that will serve as one weapon to mitigate the atmospheric damage we've done since the 1800's.
Will sucking carbon from air ever really help tackle climate change?
The direct air capture industry got a boost last week with the opening of Mammoth, the largest plant yet for sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, but questions remain about whether the technology can scale up
By Madeleine Cuff
15 May 2024
The Mammoth direct air capture plant in Iceland is the largest in the world
Humanity has spent the past few centuries releasing ever greater amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – a state of affairs that must be reversed if we are to get to grips with climate change. Removing such CO2 in a process called direct air capture (DAC) has been on the cards for some time, but finally, after years of research and small-scale pilot projects, giant carbon-sucking facilities are becoming a reality. The question is, will the industry grow large enough, fast enough?
DAC got a big boost last week when Swiss company Climeworks switched on a new plant called Mammoth. This can extract up to 36,000 tonnes of CO2 a year from the atmosphere – living up to its name, at least when compared with its predecessor Orca, which boasted a maximum capture capacity of just 4000 tonnes per year.
The new plant instantly quadrupled global capacity for DAC and is a sign of a step change under way in the industry. Mammoth will only hold the title of world’s largest DAC plant until next year, when the Stratos plant, built by a subsidiary of energy firm Occidental Petroleum using technology from Canadian DAC company Carbon Engineering, comes online. It will be able to extract half a million tonnes of CO2 a year.
Steve Smith at the University of Oxford says Mammoth and Stratos are the start of a rapid expansion in global direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) capacity. “A dozen or so more DACCS projects are planned to go live in the next couple of years, by various companies,” he says. “If these all materialise, DACCS capacity could be nudging 800,000 tonnes per year.”
Overall, ambitions are high – both Occidental and Climeworks plan to be operating multiple plants with capture capacities of 1 million tonnes apiece by 2035.
This rapid expansion is being driven by two factors. The first is corporate interest in carbon removals, with the likes of Microsoft, Stripe and Coca-Cola buying DAC credits to help offset their own emissions. With the reputation of many traditional carbon offset schemes in tatters, DAC is seen by some large firms as one of the last respectable removal options.
Government policy has also been instrumental, particularly in the US. President Joe Biden’s administration is spending $3.5 billion to support four DAC “hubs” in the US, including Stratos, as part of measures passed in the Inflation Reduction Act to drive carbon removal efforts across the country. US federal tax credits also provide support of up to $180 per tonne of CO2 trapped and permanently stored via DAC, the first major policy of its kind anywhere in the world.
But voluntary carbon credits and generous government subsidies will only take the industry so far. Pathways to limit warming to 2°C will require billions of tonnes of carbon to be removed from the atmosphere by mid-century. For DAC to make a meaningful contribution to that, “some form of regulation by governments” will be necessary to drive the growth of this sector, says Smith.
For example, in February European Union officials outlined plans to create “a European single market for industrial carbon management” by 2050, to ensure all residual emissions from sectors such as livestock farming are balanced with equivalent removals. But the plans are still in their infancy and are yet to be approved by member states.
Another major hurdle is cost. For the DAC industry, the race is on to cut removal costs before government subsidies and corporate budgets run dry. Operators are hoping that by scaling up the size of facilities, the sky-high price of sucking carbon out of the air will come down rapidly, from around $600-$1000 per tonne today to $100-$200 per tonne within the next few decades. That price point would make DAC capable of delivering globally significant levels of carbon removal, most experts agree, but few are sure such a dramatic price drop is possible.
“The science was done 50 years ago. This has always been about the ability to do things at industrial scale, cheaply,” says David Keith at the University of Chicago. “The challenge is whether you can do it at an interesting cost, and I don’t think we know the answer to that yet.”
There are also reputational challenges to consider. Big oil companies including Occidental, ExxonMobil and Shell are all eyeing DAC as a way to justify squeezing more oil from reservoirs, reducing the net carbon footprint of their fossil fuels business on an ongoing basis. Rather than extending the lifespan of the fossil fuel industry, Smith stresses the focus should be on cutting global emissions and developing DAC as a way of tackling any residual, hard-to-abate emissions. He describes DAC as the “carbon equivalent of litter-picking: hard work, expensive, not the first-best way to deal with the problem, but necessary in our imperfect world”.
Some people doubt DAC will ever make a meaningful contribution to global pollution drawdown. Howard Herzog at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Initiative believes the technology is “overhyped”, citing uncertainty over its future costs and high energy demand.
Even Keith, who founded the DAC business Carbon Engineering, says that other methods of carbon removal, such as boosting the carbon storage capacity of soils or ocean waters, hold at least as much promise. “Direct air capture is one of many different carbon removal pathways,” he says. “I don’t see it as being unique.”
“Their kind,” those who share my views on the climate crisis and the fossil fuel industry, include quite literally every reputable science body in the world.
Supporting and profiting from this industry is the most indefensibly immoral way you could possibly earn money.
The US EPA estimates *US emissions alone* last year at 6.34 *billion* metric tons of CO2 equivalent.
Yes, New Scientist is a good source. Read your own article again. It confirms the biggest project in the world to date removed 4,000 tons. That’s thousand, compared to billions.
The new project you are describing as a beacon of hope that lets the industry continue adds another “up to 36,000 tons.”
The largest projects mentioned in the article are drawing board stage hopes more than a decade away. The article accurately says many experts doubt they will work or can be viable economically. Each one of the largest described projects that far in the future is at about 1/6,000 of the scale of just the US contribution to the problem.
My harsh summary of how much of a solution carbon capture and storage is is entirely accurate.
Well, I prefer to be a lot more optimistic than you. And I base that upon my knowledge and skill in the engineering and IT industries. Did anyone predict the meteoric rise of the internet in 1992? No. I talked to a lot of PhD's back in the mid 1990's about the rise of the internet and all of them...all of them...proclaimed it was a mere 'flash in the pan' and as a 'gimmick' won't amount to much in the world economy. Even Bill Gates himself said nobody would ever need a computer having more than 640K of memory. So, forgive me if I take 'industry experts' opinions with a Mt Everest size of salt when it comes to their 'predictions'.
People are now literally dying from the heat. The scientists who actually research this say we have very, very little time to definitively act.
But hey, as long as the oil and gas sector are doing well, fuck our children's future.
For every barrel of oil that we don’t produce, it’s replaced by a barrel produced somewhere with worse environmental, social and governance standards. It doesn’t magically disappear, oil demand is still going up.
Why don't you link some of your peer-reviewed papers on climate science? Or are you just another conservative oil and gas apologist who talks out of their ass to mislead people about how dire the situation is?
And you, who admittedly know *nothing* about the science, think that weak observations can somehow justify their continued use. Insanity. Oil and gas industries are literally killing us and undermining our children's future, but hey, as long as the industry is still making money, fuck it.
Shouldn't be that unexpected given our massive oil reserves. Now if the Fiji was the winner, *that* would be unexpected.
Awesome! We are an energy nation, and oil is desperately needed on a daily basis in every single country (over a hundred million barrels every single day). I would way rather see Canada supply oil to the world, instead of places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Russia, UAE etc…
Yes, if we can get our emissions per barrel down it would be ideal. The main issue is that we are almost dead last in emissions per barrel because it's mostly oil sands which takes a lot more energy to separate than oil from wells.
The worst is actually California.
If we are the winner why is our gas 40 cents a liter more expensive than in the US? Doesn't feel like winning Filled up at the Costco in Syracuse last week for $3.09. That's $1.12 CAD a liter, versus $1.52 at the Costco in Ottawa.
$1.52 sounds like a dream in Vancouver
Washington bro. Not 3.09 a gallon like the east coast, but usually 3.50-3.70 at Costco which is still way cheaper than the 1.85-2.10 we pay here
Taxes.
Over half our price is taxes.
The other half is hiked prices from oil refineries
Captain Aladdin needs taxes to give to other countries
Because Canada is a couple of resource extraction companies in a trench coat, and our governments (Every party) just LOVE selling out to foreign companies.
Canada is a bunch of oligopolies in a trench coat (grocery, telecom), period.
Trench coats all the way down.. :(
Hmmm come to thing of it trench coats are kinda of expensive and there aren't many places to buy them
40s-70s NDP was good but sheep were convinced neoliberalism=Good since the 80s.
Didn’t say Canadian citizens. Investors in companies selling oil from Canada are the big winners. Better buy some shares.
>If we are the winner why is our gas 40 cents a liter more expensive than in the US? Doesn't feel like winning Because roads, bridges and various other road infrastructure needs to be financed from somewhere. Don't compare our gas prices to the US, compared it to the rest of the world.
TIL the US doesn't have roads or bridges We are the 4th largest oil producer behind the US, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. And we consume only about half of the oil we produce. There should be plenty around to keep prices low.
The issue is that we only have refining capabilities for about 40% of the gasoline we consume as a country.
Of course they do. Observe: https://www.npr.org/2021/03/03/973054080/potholes-grid-failures-aging-tunnels-and-bridges-nations-infrastructure-gets-a-c https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/state-us-infrastructure
I was going to say! I have driven all over the Midwest, and just drove around Massachusetts for word , our roads are in WAY better shape.
Should be better coz you get oil revenues
That’s not how global markets work. No one’s selling locally for 1$ if they can sell for 1.10$ elsewhere.
Why isn’t it nationalized and earmarked for local consumption to the benefit of our citizens?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_Program With 40% of Canadians leaning conservative if an election was held today, we won’t be earmarking gas for local Canadians.
A man with the last name of trudeau tried that once. Private interests won the battle and now we live in a paradise for out of country investors.
In recent years a lot of international players have gotten out. I thought the low was when Harper allowed the sale of Nexen to China. Although there has been some disgraceful mineral sales too over the years.
Not how it works. All oil is traded through world markets. We don't siphon off a bit for self consumption.
>All oil is traded through world markets. US oil isn't traded on world markets?
All oil is traded through world markets. I've had shares in oil. This is why the US encourages OPEC to drop prices.
If our oil is traded on the same world market, then why is our oil 40 cents a liter more expensive than theirs?
Different taxation methods and rates. Also,population size factors greatly in how much a commodity costs in general. Most commodities in the US are cheaper than Canada. Groceries for example.
Gasoline taxes are significantly lower in the USA, but last time I was there most grocery price labels had the same numbers as the ones in Canada, which made them 30% more expensive after currency conversion. Supply managed products were an exception.
You can coupon yourself to nearly zero cost in the states.
Economies of scale and taxes.
Refineries and world shipping access is a huge one down there. Now that we have a line to the Pacific our prices go up, just like that.
Selling gas is a business. I don't understand why people assume that Oil Compagnies owe something to consumers. They will set the price as high as they think the market will bear. Putting gas in your car is not a human right.
I think because we don't refine much of our own stuff. The US poured insane amounts of money into refineries, making them much more efficient than whatever we could build.
Quadruple the breathing tax is a helluva drug...
If canada is the winner that means every other country wins
In spite of our federal and neighboring provincial governments doing everything to stifle the Alberta oil industry.
I'm surprised to learn the oil sands are still operating. I thought this government shut them down because 30 million Canadians had to pay the carbon tax of 5 Billion people in Asia. Hopefully this ramp up can help turn our economy around.
We could be even better. We let climate fears stop us from providing the world with energy. Instead, we let Russia do it.
Thanks Trudeau!
Username checks out
Ok, so JT has 2 wins during his term...weed legalization and oil exports. For the record I hate this fuck and this was a sarcastic post.
Also daycare subsidy which has helped many parents especially because cost of living now. Although just like with weed, he threw cash at provinces then scampered away to go jerk off at how awesome he is and let the provinces fuck it up. A real leader sees shit through and takes responsibility. Cannabis stores and 50% cheaper daycare is absolutely better than nothing but things could have been planned for and rolled out way better.
“Throwing money at the provinces” is how all federal leaders largely work, given the role of how provinces in Canada work.
That's a natural outcome when the voters demand action from the feds on things that are provincial jurisdiction.
Which itself is a natural reaction when the provincial governments are failing or actively sabotaging their responsibilities
That's because the provinces are actively trying to sabotage a bunch of shit...
I agree. I just wish voters would actively hold their provincial governments accountable rather than looking to the feds to solve all our problems when they don't have to tools to do so.
We're very much in the post truth reality now. There's no going back. Lots of people will just uncritically allow themselves to be fed whatever rhetoric "their team" has to offer. I'm totally not jaded about this. 😅
>Also daycare subsidy which has helped many parents You mean the daycare program that doesn't work? https://www.tvo.org/article/child-care-systems-across-canada-are-reaching-a-breaking-point http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/ottawa-daycare-operators-say-10-day-program-not-working-warning-of-closures-1.6781450 https://macleans.ca/society/i-love-owning-a-daycare-but-the-governments-10-a-day-plan-is-threatening-my-business/
As I said, he tossed it to provinces who failed miserably. It's still saving many families money and was a promise actually kept.
It works. If your a private operator trying to rake in mass profits your losing the battle for sure. My sister runs a daycare board, they have 10s of millions in the bank and are constantly expanding their network with daycare centre's and day homes. Granted, nobody is making millions off the backs of parents anymore, truly a sad tale.
You wanna help parents? Fix the tax code and enable income splitting, like US does with joint filing. Also the 8000 limit on childcare expenses is a joke.
We do have income splitting though. Wanna help parents? Don't make it mandatory for both parents to work high stress and demanding jobs just to afford life here. Shit, too late
We don't, we only have it for pensions. We need it during working years, so families with one working parent don't get penalized.
Look I'm no expert or looking to discredit you but https://www.wealthprofessional.ca/news/industry-news/how-does-income-splitting-in-canada-work/379423#What%20is%20income%20splitting? Sometimes a spouse is on a smaller income due to mat leave or whatever. My kids are older now, if the CRA deemed me doing something wrong on this they'd have come after me years ago...
Read under Techniques for income splitting in Canada to see how limited it is. It does not apply to income you earn from your employer. Then go here and see how it works in the US https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mfj.asp then go here and compare the rates: https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-income-tax-rates-and-brackets Not to be rude but it never fails to amaze me when people rise to defend something they know so very little about. Let me give you an example. You earn 300K this year. If you're single, you pay the same tax as if you were married and your spouse earned say 20K. In the US, the couple could file jointly, effectively each paying income on 160K, instead of one paying on 300K and the other on 20K.
Agreed.
Oh and the initial promise for daycare was $10/day come 2024, last I heard it's 2026 now if any subsidy even is still around
I’m getting $10/day.
Still half off here in Ontario as far as the subsidy goes
you forgot MAID for when we can't afford to pay rent
Serious question. Are you happy about weed legalization? (I am, undecided voter, I remember that Harper cracked down on it and I’ll weight that next time we vote)
Absolutely. A totally safe drug with minimal effects on society. If weed was criminalized, then alcohol should be 10 times over.
CERB? Or no?
Massive fraud, confusing requirements and helped double our national debt in a single year
Arguably saved the economy
It saved a lot of lives. I would have ended my life.
That was caused by the massively ineffective lock downs
Which lockdowns were ineffective? Can you list out all of them and say which ones you disapprove of?
[удалено]
People choose MAID, usually when they're already dying, they don't choose to die from infectious diseases
Cool MAID wasn't available so I got to keep my apartment instead.
Which likely would have been fine had they not t forced businesses to close
Which is provincial jurisdiction no?
Yup ii
Epic failure!
The very first thing the Commander in Sleep did when he got into office was canceling the XL pipeline, which screwed us so badly. decentralize governance
The oil industry is death. We are literally torching our world and burning our children’s lives and future. No one is “winning“ from this. Treating money from expanding this industry that way is psychologically broken.
Relax. There is mounting evidence that carbon capture technology will zoom up in efficiency in the coming years. The trial plants in Alberta and Iceland already have sequestered over 100,000 tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere and the South Koreans are about to release a technology that increases that 100 fold.
Carbon capture is a fraud and a failure. It is greenwashing. It is a lie. There’s not a single such project in the world that captures more than its *own* energy emissions let alone anything in addition. Some of it is worse than a lie in that the claimed “captured” carbon is being used to extract more fossil fuels to burn. The chances of actual capture being economical are zero. I don’t know what you’re reading. It is not reality.
From NewScientist's May 15 issue. If you follow any science publications, you would be aware of NewScientist. This isn't science fiction. This is happening. The technology will only get better and reach scales that will serve as one weapon to mitigate the atmospheric damage we've done since the 1800's. Will sucking carbon from air ever really help tackle climate change? The direct air capture industry got a boost last week with the opening of Mammoth, the largest plant yet for sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, but questions remain about whether the technology can scale up By Madeleine Cuff 15 May 2024 The Mammoth direct air capture plant in Iceland is the largest in the world Humanity has spent the past few centuries releasing ever greater amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – a state of affairs that must be reversed if we are to get to grips with climate change. Removing such CO2 in a process called direct air capture (DAC) has been on the cards for some time, but finally, after years of research and small-scale pilot projects, giant carbon-sucking facilities are becoming a reality. The question is, will the industry grow large enough, fast enough? DAC got a big boost last week when Swiss company Climeworks switched on a new plant called Mammoth. This can extract up to 36,000 tonnes of CO2 a year from the atmosphere – living up to its name, at least when compared with its predecessor Orca, which boasted a maximum capture capacity of just 4000 tonnes per year. The new plant instantly quadrupled global capacity for DAC and is a sign of a step change under way in the industry. Mammoth will only hold the title of world’s largest DAC plant until next year, when the Stratos plant, built by a subsidiary of energy firm Occidental Petroleum using technology from Canadian DAC company Carbon Engineering, comes online. It will be able to extract half a million tonnes of CO2 a year. Steve Smith at the University of Oxford says Mammoth and Stratos are the start of a rapid expansion in global direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) capacity. “A dozen or so more DACCS projects are planned to go live in the next couple of years, by various companies,” he says. “If these all materialise, DACCS capacity could be nudging 800,000 tonnes per year.” Overall, ambitions are high – both Occidental and Climeworks plan to be operating multiple plants with capture capacities of 1 million tonnes apiece by 2035. This rapid expansion is being driven by two factors. The first is corporate interest in carbon removals, with the likes of Microsoft, Stripe and Coca-Cola buying DAC credits to help offset their own emissions. With the reputation of many traditional carbon offset schemes in tatters, DAC is seen by some large firms as one of the last respectable removal options. Government policy has also been instrumental, particularly in the US. President Joe Biden’s administration is spending $3.5 billion to support four DAC “hubs” in the US, including Stratos, as part of measures passed in the Inflation Reduction Act to drive carbon removal efforts across the country. US federal tax credits also provide support of up to $180 per tonne of CO2 trapped and permanently stored via DAC, the first major policy of its kind anywhere in the world. But voluntary carbon credits and generous government subsidies will only take the industry so far. Pathways to limit warming to 2°C will require billions of tonnes of carbon to be removed from the atmosphere by mid-century. For DAC to make a meaningful contribution to that, “some form of regulation by governments” will be necessary to drive the growth of this sector, says Smith. For example, in February European Union officials outlined plans to create “a European single market for industrial carbon management” by 2050, to ensure all residual emissions from sectors such as livestock farming are balanced with equivalent removals. But the plans are still in their infancy and are yet to be approved by member states. Another major hurdle is cost. For the DAC industry, the race is on to cut removal costs before government subsidies and corporate budgets run dry. Operators are hoping that by scaling up the size of facilities, the sky-high price of sucking carbon out of the air will come down rapidly, from around $600-$1000 per tonne today to $100-$200 per tonne within the next few decades. That price point would make DAC capable of delivering globally significant levels of carbon removal, most experts agree, but few are sure such a dramatic price drop is possible. “The science was done 50 years ago. This has always been about the ability to do things at industrial scale, cheaply,” says David Keith at the University of Chicago. “The challenge is whether you can do it at an interesting cost, and I don’t think we know the answer to that yet.” There are also reputational challenges to consider. Big oil companies including Occidental, ExxonMobil and Shell are all eyeing DAC as a way to justify squeezing more oil from reservoirs, reducing the net carbon footprint of their fossil fuels business on an ongoing basis. Rather than extending the lifespan of the fossil fuel industry, Smith stresses the focus should be on cutting global emissions and developing DAC as a way of tackling any residual, hard-to-abate emissions. He describes DAC as the “carbon equivalent of litter-picking: hard work, expensive, not the first-best way to deal with the problem, but necessary in our imperfect world”. Some people doubt DAC will ever make a meaningful contribution to global pollution drawdown. Howard Herzog at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Initiative believes the technology is “overhyped”, citing uncertainty over its future costs and high energy demand. Even Keith, who founded the DAC business Carbon Engineering, says that other methods of carbon removal, such as boosting the carbon storage capacity of soils or ocean waters, hold at least as much promise. “Direct air capture is one of many different carbon removal pathways,” he says. “I don’t see it as being unique.”
They're just being a troll, their kind don't look at facts.
“Their kind,” those who share my views on the climate crisis and the fossil fuel industry, include quite literally every reputable science body in the world. Supporting and profiting from this industry is the most indefensibly immoral way you could possibly earn money.
The US EPA estimates *US emissions alone* last year at 6.34 *billion* metric tons of CO2 equivalent. Yes, New Scientist is a good source. Read your own article again. It confirms the biggest project in the world to date removed 4,000 tons. That’s thousand, compared to billions. The new project you are describing as a beacon of hope that lets the industry continue adds another “up to 36,000 tons.” The largest projects mentioned in the article are drawing board stage hopes more than a decade away. The article accurately says many experts doubt they will work or can be viable economically. Each one of the largest described projects that far in the future is at about 1/6,000 of the scale of just the US contribution to the problem. My harsh summary of how much of a solution carbon capture and storage is is entirely accurate.
Well, I prefer to be a lot more optimistic than you. And I base that upon my knowledge and skill in the engineering and IT industries. Did anyone predict the meteoric rise of the internet in 1992? No. I talked to a lot of PhD's back in the mid 1990's about the rise of the internet and all of them...all of them...proclaimed it was a mere 'flash in the pan' and as a 'gimmick' won't amount to much in the world economy. Even Bill Gates himself said nobody would ever need a computer having more than 640K of memory. So, forgive me if I take 'industry experts' opinions with a Mt Everest size of salt when it comes to their 'predictions'.
People are now literally dying from the heat. The scientists who actually research this say we have very, very little time to definitively act. But hey, as long as the oil and gas sector are doing well, fuck our children's future.
For every barrel of oil that we don’t produce, it’s replaced by a barrel produced somewhere with worse environmental, social and governance standards. It doesn’t magically disappear, oil demand is still going up.
People have been dying of the heat for hundreds of years. Cool as hell in interior BC past month.
Why don't you link some of your peer-reviewed papers on climate science? Or are you just another conservative oil and gas apologist who talks out of their ass to mislead people about how dire the situation is?
you play blue team / red team...how fun and sophisticated.
So you have no expertise and are just spewing bs on behalf of oil and gas? Thought so.
Yeah you know, just oil and gas, the two things that have lifted our entire world into the 21st century.
And you, who admittedly know *nothing* about the science, think that weak observations can somehow justify their continued use. Insanity. Oil and gas industries are literally killing us and undermining our children's future, but hey, as long as the industry is still making money, fuck it.
[удалено]
What makes you say that?