At first glance, it looks like a second chance given to us after decades of neglect in the face of the climate emergency. One might even think that carbon capture and storage technologies offer the possibility of saving the planet… while continuing to develop fossil fuels. Canada would like to believe it. “Madness”, say the experts.
Economic reasons are most often cited to justify the fact that we are not advancing faster in the fight against global warming. However, there is not a minute to lose if we want to avoid the worst, recalled this week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the third part of its sixth report summarizing the scientific knowledge on the subject.
What’s more, the “immediate and drastic reduction in emissions” of greenhouse gases (GHGs) required wouldn’t even cost that much, it is estimated, especially if we stop pushing it endlessly. On a global scale, the economic price of limiting the temperature increase to 1.5°C would therefore only be between 0.09 and 0.14 percentage points of lost growth per year for a lack of to gain, in 30 years, from 2.6% to 4.2% on a gross domestic product (GDP) destined, during the same period, to more than double.
Translation: GDP would increase by 95.8% to 97.4%, from 2020 to 2050, instead of 100%. And these assessments do not even take into account the economic damage that will otherwise be inflicted by climate change or the positive economic and human benefits that would flow from a shift to a more sustainable economy.
The best part, IPCC Chairman Hoesung Lee explained on Monday, is that “we have the tools and the know-how to limit global warming. […] Several policies, regulations and market instruments are proving effective. If we apply them more systematically, on a larger scale and more equitably, they can help to radically reduce emissions and stimulate innovation”.
Expensive and out of date
Some solutions would even save money. This is the case, for example, of wind and solar energy, which often already prove to be less expensive than the more polluting options, as is electric, public or active transport, or even the improvement of the energy performance of buildings.
However, there are other solutions whose cost looks much higher and promises of success much more uncertain, notes the IPCC. This is particularly the case for carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) technologies, whether we want to plug them directly into the chimneys of polluting factories or simply use them as big air fresheners.
The most common, cheapest and most proven way to capture and store carbon is still to plant trees, protect green spaces and adopt better agricultural practices. But there is still a limit to the land available and what it can do, experts say.
There has been talk, for years, of mechanical and chemical technologies that would do the same job, but they remain for the moment largely experimental, very expensive and terribly energy-intensive. Much was made, for example, last fall of the opening in Iceland of the world’s largest CCUS facility capable of removing 9,000 tonnes of GHGs per year from the atmosphere. However, it should have been specified that this is only equivalent to the emissions of 2,000 cars, at a cost of US$600 per tonne, Reuters noted.
What’s more, the combined capabilities deployed worldwide so far can only remove about 0.001% of carbon emissions, a report by research group Environmental Defense reported last month. A leader in the field, Canada has already invested $5.6 billion in government grants in CCUS projects since 2000, resulting in an absorption capacity equivalent to 0.05% of its emissions. of GHG.
The necessary end of oil
For the IPCC, these technologies should, despite everything, be used in sectors where there is a real lack of less polluting options, such as cement works and the chemical industry, as well as to capture the few GHG emissions which, even in the best case, will continue to escape here and there. However, there is no question of seeing it as a cornerstone of the fight against climate change and even less the way to continue the development of fossil fuels which, on the contrary, must have been abandoned at 60% for oil, 70 % for gas and 100% for coal in 2050, even with the help of CUSC measures.
Despite everything, Canada has great hopes in these measures. The day after its approval of the new Bay du Nord oil project, the Trudeau government promised new subsidies to the CUSC which will gradually reach $1.5 billion per year starting in 2026-2027. “We don’t have to choose between a strong economy and a healthy environment,” Prime Minister Trudeau argued when unveiling his GHG reduction plan last week, saying both the same thing as the IPCC. and the opposite.
“Climate activists are sometimes portrayed as dangerous radicals. But the real dangerous radicals are the countries that increase their production of fossil fuels, said on Twitter on Tuesday the Secretary General of the United Nations, António Guterres. Investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure is moral and economic folly. »