• Canada
  • USA
  • Fossil Fuels
  • About
  • Contact
  • Eco-Anxiety
  • Climate Glossary
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
  • Cities & Communities
  • Electric Vehicles
  • Heat & Power
  • Community Climate Finance
Subscribe
The Energy Mix
  • Cities & Communities
  • Electric Vehicles
  • Heat & Power
  • Community Climate Finance
Subscribe
The Energy Mix
No Result
View All Result

Ditch Plans for Carbon Capture Tax Credit, 400+ Climate Scientists, Academics Urge Freeland

January 21, 2022
Reading time: 5 minutes
Primary Author: Mitchell Beer @mitchellbeer

Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine/Wikimedia Commons

Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine/Wikimedia Commons

The federal government’s plan to introduce a tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) technology hit the top tier of the Canadian climate agenda this week, after more than 400 climate scientists and other academics wrote to Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland urging her to drop the idea.

Earlier this week, Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson confirmed to Bloomberg News that the tax credit is on the way, and will likely be included in Freeland’s next budget. Yesterday, Freeland spokesperson Adrienne Vaupshas told The Canadian Press the credit was intended to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 15 million tonnes per year.

“Consultations with the industry and other stakeholders with respect to the design of this CCUS measure have been positive and productive,” she said.

But while CP says the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is looking to taxpayers to cover three-quarters of the C$75-billion price tag for CCUS development, the 400+ academics said the plan is doomed to fail.

“Deploying CCUS at any climate-relevant scale, carried out within the short time frame we have to avert climate catastrophe without posing substantial risks to communities on the front lines of the buildout, is a pipe dream,” declared the group of signatories led by Dr. Christina Hoicka, Canada Research Chair in Urban Planning for Climate Change at the University of Victoria.

“We must instead move forward with proven climate solutions that will contribute the most to emissions reductions: increased electrification, wide-scale use of renewable energy, and intensifying energy efficiency.”

The academics called the proposed tax credit a “substantial new fossil fuel subsidy” that would contradict the Trudeau government’s commitment to a subsidy phaseout by 2023, favouring a technology that has failed to prove its worth.

“Despite decades of research, CCUS is neither economically sound nor proven at scale, with a terrible track record and limited potential to deliver significant, cost-effective emissions reductions,” they wrote.

By contrast, “effective solutions to achieve deep emission reductions in the next decade along a pathway to zero emissions are already at hand, including renewable energy, electrification, and energy efficiency. Funding CCUS diverts resources from these proven, more cost-effective solutions that are available on the time frames required to mitigate climate change.”

With four of every five CCUS projects in the U.S. declared a failure, and 81% of the carbon captured to date injected underground to force more oil to the surface through a process called enhanced oil recovery (EOR), “carbon capture for the oil and gas sector is not a climate solution,” they added. “At best, it prevents some carbon dioxide from polluting facilities from reaching the atmosphere, but it is not a negative emissions technology. Despite the billions of taxpayer dollars spent by governments globally on CCUS, the technology has not made a dent in CO2 emissions.”

Hoicka told CP she was pleasantly surprised to see so many of her colleagues endorse the letter in just a few weeks. “This is one of the largest groups I’ve seen sign a letter of this type in Canada,” she said.

One of the signatories, Jason MacLean, contrasted the tax credit with the rest of the climate action agenda the government has been putting forward.

“What’s so jarring and troubling about this tax credit, besides the fact that it will be completely counterproductive from a climate policy perspective, is that the government appears poised to roll it out when it is otherwise in the process of conducting consultations on its first Net-Zero Emissions Plan under its recently enacted Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act,” wrote MacLean, an assistant professor in the University of New Brunswick Faculty of Law.

“Canada needs an integrated, internally coherent, and evidence-based whole-of-government approach to climate policy-making that moves rapidly towards decarbonization and sustainability,” he told The Energy Mix in an email. “The design and communication of this tax credit undermines this imperative.”

Ottawa also “appears not to have learned anything from the American experience with substantially the same tax credit,” MacLean added. The Section 45Q tax measure in the U.S. “may actually be increasing enhanced oil recovery and therefore GHG emissions, and many of the credits claimed in the U.S. are for unverified tons of captured carbon. Not only is the credit poor climate policy, it is poor fiscal policy, as well.”

“The federal government, I think, really has a choice to make,” Emily Eaton, associate professor of geography and environmental studies at the University of Regina, told CP “Either join countries around the world and plan for a managed phaseout of oil and gas, or it can prop up this industry with this unproven technology, and extend the life and also the emissions of the fossil fuel sector indefinitely.”

Eaton and MacLean both pointed to the 80% of the emissions from oil and gas that are unaffected by CCUS, since they occur after the end product is shipped to user and burned. Prolonging fossil production while the rest of the world decarbonizes would also increase the risk of CCUS installations becoming “stranded assets”, MacLean told Bloomberg News.

While the federal government is pushing ahead with consultations on the tax credit, Julia Levin, senior climate and energy program manager at Environmental Defence, said there’s still time for initiatives like the Hoicka letter to shift the final decision.

“It’s not done and baked,” she said. “We know with government, and with the budget more generally, that the last week [before an announcement] can be incredibly influential, and we’re still months away from it.” The fossil lobby will be stepping up pressure to get the tax credit in place, “so it’s really important that the critics who feel cautious about investing in carbon capture also get their voices heard right up to the last minute.”



in Canada, Carbon Levels & Measurement, CCS & Negative Emissions, Energy Politics, Legal & Regulatory, Oil & Gas, Oil Sands, Subsidies

Trending Stories

Ian Muttoo/flickr
United States

Ontario Slaps 25% Surcharge on Power Exports as U.S. Commerce Secretary Vows More Tariffs

March 12, 2025
313
Doug Kerr/flickr
Power Grids

New NB-NS Transmission Line Would ‘Take Care of Home’ Through Trump’s Trade War

March 7, 2025
283
LoggaWiggler / Pixabay
Energy Politics

Tariffs Likely to Crater Canadian Crude Exports to U.S., Marathon Tells Investors

March 11, 2025
242

Comments 2

  1. Ed Brost says:
    3 years ago

    Taxpayer Investment in CCUS is almost guaranteed to be a regretted investment, a stranded asset. Electrification of transport is becoming mainstream. There is no way to get around it, reducing transportation emissions will result in less oil demand. Maybe not this year or next, but inevitably. Do you want to bet that multi-billion dollar investments in CCUS will have a 20+ year economic life? If yes then you are betting that the world will fail to decarbonize. Carbon Capture and Sequestration (not utilization) should be reserved for difficult to decarbonize industries such as cement manufacturing.

    Reply
  2. Bill Henderson says:
    3 years ago

    Ms Eaton’s quote is super relevant. “The federal government, I think, really has a choice to make,” And Ms. Eaton knows what she is talking about:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348807677_Approaches_to_energy_transitions_Carbon_pricing_managed_decline_andor_green_new_deal

    Except a managed phaseout isn’t even allowed on the menu for debate, in parliament, in our MSM, in even our policy discussions, and our fed govt refuses to even consider that it has this choice to make.

    In a must read on Biden’s climate plans Richard Heinberg adds: “If Biden had, for example, proposed a plan to gradually but systematically reduce fossil fuel production and consumption throughout the US economy, that would have been remarkable and courageous. The best way forward for this or any other country would be a program for rationing our remaining fossil fuels, with an annually declining cap on production. That would aid planning at all levels, from households to industry to government. But political support for such a measure is unlikely to coalesce until circumstances (i.e., consequences of climate change and fossil fuel depletion) grow more obvious and dire.
    https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-01-19/how-are-the-us-and-other-countries-doing-on-fighting-climate-change/

    Reducing GHG emissions by half by 2030 is the imperative but were not going that way. The 400+ climate intelligensia should be forcing a managed production phaseout on to the public and policymaker menu for debate. This is the only policy avenue that has a hope of 2030 mitigation success after three decades of failure.

    Thomas Homer-Dixon has plotted out our feasibility vs disruptive predicament:
    https://cascadeinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Getting-to-Enough-7.0-1.pdf

    If the climate intelligensia keeps reaffirming that orthodox decarbonization – instead of actually regulating a decline in production – can still work, when this is now untenable, humanity is going to lose big time.

    “The transition to a largely electric-powered, low-carbon economy requires massive increases in both the renewable production and transmission of electricity. This transition is currently in the early stages and will be a long and challenging journey….The impact of widespread disruptions like these on livelihoods and business continuity are simply unacceptable.”
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/louisgritzo/2022/01/19/mass-electrification-and-its-cruel-twist-to-the-climate-challenge/?sh=149aed6c18ff

    What is the IPCC mitigation report going to say in the Spring?

    What will our descendants think about limiting governmental action to only those policies that stay safe within neoliberal ideology, not threatening the economy in any way, not even considering policies that have to be disruptive, even if it guarantees disaster for all future generations?

    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.

Get the climate news you need, delivered direct to your inbox. Sign up for our free e-digest.

Subscribe Today

View our latest digests

Related Articles

Tariffs Likely to Crater Canadian Crude Exports to U.S., Marathon Tells Investors

Tariffs Likely to Crater Canadian Crude Exports to U.S., Marathon Tells Investors

March 10, 2025
First Person: Invest in Local Energy, Not Pipelines

First Person: Invest in Local Energy, Not Pipelines

March 3, 2025
NS Fracking, Uranium Plans Carry Dire Costs, Experts Warn

NS Fracking, Uranium Plans Carry Dire Costs, Experts Warn

March 3, 2025

Quicker, Smaller, Better: A Fork in the Road That Delivers a Clean Energy Future

by Mitchell Beer
March 9, 2025

…

Follow Us

Copyright 2025 © Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

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

Proudly partnering with…

scf_logo
Climate-and-Capital

No Result
View All Result
  • Cities & Communities
  • Electric Vehicles
  • Heat & Power
  • Community Climate Finance

Copyright 2025 © 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 {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}
No Result
View All Result
  • Cities & Communities
  • Electric Vehicles
  • Heat & Power
  • Community Climate Finance

Copyright 2025 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.