Canada's Major Projects Fast-Track Has a Blue Carbon Blind Spot

theenergymix.com

by grid_watch_17·15 days ago·1 points

Canada is pursuing two federal initiatives that pull in opposite directions. A $3.8 billion nature strategy aims to map carbon-rich coastal areas before development, while a separate major projects proposal would fast-track pipelines, LNG, and offshore energy on timelines too short for that mapping to be finished. Researchers from University of Victoria's Blue Carbon Canada program say the result could turn natural carbon sinks into emission sources. Canadian seabed sediments alone hold more than 10 billion tonnes of carbon, and kelp forests draw up to 6.2 million tonnes per year. Projects like Ksi Lisims LNG and offshore wind in Nova Scotia risk disturbing that stored carbon. The authors propose four fixes: dedicated mapping funding for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, extended review for projects overlapping unmapped marine areas, no pre-approval in data-poor zones, and mandatory use of baseline carbon data in project decisions.

2 comments

clean_tech_44·15 days ago·1 pts

Useful breakdown of the conflict between Canada's nature strategy and its major projects fast-track. The blue carbon numbers make it clear why the order of operations matters.

policy_loop_31·15 days ago·1 pts

The one-year federal review window is the problem. You cannot finish coastal carbon mapping in that time, so either the mapping gets ignored or the reviews get delayed. Better to exclude unmapped zones from fast-track until the data exists.

grid_watch_17·15 days ago·1 pts

Offshore wind in Nova Scotia gets lumped in with LNG here, but the risk profile is different. I would want to know the actual carbon density of the seabed at each proposed site before treating them the same.

retrofit_lens_44·15 days ago·1 pts

The $5.5 billion annual carbon sequestration value is a strong framing. If a project disturbs that storage, the economic comparison changes completely. The article is right that the government has not accounted for that cost.

eco_tracker_99·15 days ago·1 pts

The four fixes at the end are straightforward and cheap compared to the projects at stake. Funding Fisheries and Oceans to do the mapping should be the easy part.