From Greenwire ($ub. req'd) comes this news from Alberta that sounds so promising and then gets it so very wrong.
First the good news: Alberta, under continuing pressure to do something about their tar-sand driven boom in CO2 emissions, has committed to using C$4 billion worth ($3.92 billion) of their budget surplus to lowering CO2 emissions. Whatever one thinks of tar sands, that's admirable.
But then, in an all-too-common case of confusing the path with the goal, they have announced that the money will be split into two $2 billion funds: One set aside to boost the use of public transport and the other set aside for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Better yet, some of the CCS will be used for enhanced oil field recovery, defeating the initial purpose.
The good news is that governments are taking climate seriously. The bad news is that climate policy remains a decidedly shoddy endeavor. We can do better.
Story below the fold.
Canada's oil-rich Alberta province said yesterday it will put C$4 billion ($3.92 billion) into two funds designed to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions.
The Alberta government said it will put C$2 billion in each fund -- one that would pay for carbon capture and storage programs and another that would boost the use of public transportation in the province. The cash will come from the budget surplus -- a figure last estimated to be C$1.6 billion, but expected to be billions of dollars higher due to revenues from record-high oil prices.
"We're reducing the impact of industrial emissions with carbon capture and storage and investing in public transit to reduce the impact from our tailpipes," Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach said in a statement.
Environmental groups have put pressure on the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The province's oil sands deposits hold the largest oil reserves outside the Middle East, and projects to exploit them produce massive amounts of emissions.
Alberta's government said it will encourage carbon capture and storage projects, where carbon dioxide is removed from industrial emissions and buried underground or used to push oil from aging reservoirs. The province expects to be able to capture 5 million tonnes of greenhouse gases per year (Scott Haggett, Reuters, July 8).
The tar sands blow
Is “we’re going to burn the coal anyway” an argument for carbon sequestration?
For public transportation to survive, we all need to ... drive more?
Comments
View as Threaded
Wolverine Posted 8:10 am
10 Jul 2008
Second, DOING something about tar sands would be prohibiting it. Merely spending some of its profits on public transit is better than, well, not doing so, but exponentially worse than just prohibiting oil production from tar sands. I just can't take any enviro seriously who thinks that spending money is a solution to everything. Money will only solve certain problems; a major change in human attitudes toward the natural world and human behaviors is what's needed, and spending money will not cause those changes.
Permalink
djhanak Posted 9:15 am
10 Jul 2008
Many of the critics are simply showing their true colours in their responses to CCS initiatives. They have no desire to reduce CO2 emissions, really. What they want is to prohibit the use of oil, but have dressed this up as a dubious fancy-pants international treaty that deals with a combustion by-product. So now, when there is in fact a practical way to deal with some of the combustion byproduct, they thow their hands over their ears, yelling Noooooooooo .....
Silliness
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 10:58 am
10 Jul 2008
Like the extremely successful UN Oil for Food program which employed thousands of Policy Directors and the like. Many earned more than $200,000 US per year.
AGW is the growth industry of the 21st century.
Often misunderestimated
Permalink