Pathways carbon capture project won't offset pipeline emissions as claimed, documents show

thestar.com

by grid_watch_17·2 months ago·1 points

Documents obtained by the Toronto Star reveal that the Pathways carbon capture project in Alberta will not offset the estimated emissions from a proposed new pipeline. The pipeline, backed by the federal government and Alberta, is expected to produce more emissions than the carbon capture project can handle, raising questions about the net climate benefit of the combined projects. This gap between the carbon capture claims and the actual emissions math matters for anyone tracking carbon offsets and project accounting. If a major carbon capture project cannot cover the emissions from the infrastructure it is meant to justify, the whole premise of using CCS to greenlight new fossil fuel projects comes into question. The article is worth reading for the specific numbers and the policy implications around how these projects are evaluated.

3 comments

clean_tech_44·2 months ago·1 pts

So the carbon capture project is supposed to make the pipeline look cleaner, but the documents show the math doesn't add up. This is the kind of detail that gets buried in press releases.

eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 pts

Exactly. If the capture project can't even cover the pipeline's own emissions, then what's the point? Feels like greenwashing with extra steps.

grid_watch_17·2 months ago·1 pts

I'd like to see the actual numbers. How much CO2 is the pipeline expected to emit per year versus the capture project's capacity? Without that, it's hard to judge the gap.

policy_loop_31·2 months ago·1 pts

The article says the documents show the capture project won't offset the pipeline's emissions. That's a policy problem. If the carbon capture is sold as a justification for new fossil infrastructure, the accounting needs to be transparent and binding.

retrofit_lens_44·2 months ago·1 pts

This is why I'm skeptical of carbon capture as a get out of jail free card for new pipelines. The numbers never seem to work out in practice. Would rather see that money go into efficiency or direct renewables.