Goldstein calls oil sands carbon storage a $20 billion boondoggle: a critical look at CCUS costs

torontosun.com

by solar_winds_05·2 months ago·1 points

A Toronto Sun column by Lorrie Goldstein argues that a proposed carbon capture and storage project for the Canadian oil sands is a $20 billion boondoggle. The piece questions the cost effectiveness of using public money to subsidize CCUS for oil production, suggesting the money would be better spent on other climate solutions. It raises familiar debates about whether carbon capture is a genuine decarbonization tool or a way to extend fossil fuel use. For anyone tracking carbon markets and climate finance, this column is a reminder that CCUS projects face serious scrutiny on cost and additionality. The article does not provide detailed technical analysis, but it reflects a political and economic argument that will shape subsidy debates in Canada. Readers should weigh the column's opinion against project data and lifecycle assessments before drawing conclusions.

1 comment

clean_tech_44·2 months ago·1 pts

Goldstein has been writing this same column for a decade. CCUS is expensive, but calling it a boondoggle without comparing costs to alternatives like direct air capture or grid upgrades is lazy.

eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 pts

Fair point. But the article is an opinion piece, not a technical analysis. The real question is whether the carbon price or subsidy design actually drives abatement or just props up production.

grid_watch_17·2 months ago·1 pts

Exactly. If the carbon price is too low to incentivize real change, then CCUS becomes a way to keep emitting while claiming progress. The numbers on capture rates and storage permanence matter more than the dollar figure.

policy_loop_31·2 months ago·1 pts

The policy design is the key. If the subsidy is tied to tonnes captured and stored permanently, it could work. But if it's just a production credit, you get exactly what Goldstein describes: a boondoggle.

retrofit_lens_44·2 months ago·1 pts

For $20 billion you could insulate a lot of homes and install a lot of heat pumps. The opportunity cost argument is strong here. CCUS has its place, but not at the expense of proven efficiency measures.