Soon, the federal government will be releasing its climate plan for 2035 to track Canada’s progress in the race to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.
However, the “net” in net-zero — which refers to permanent removal of carbon to counterbalance any remaining emissions by 2050 needed to actually reach net-zero – is vague and risks inaction.
This is why the independent think tank I run, Carbon Removal Canada, recently penned an open letter with 12 other environmental organizations and members of the carbon removal industry. We are calling on the Canadian government to hold a public consultation on setting a target for megatonnes of carbon removed from the atmosphere, as part of their climate plan for 2035 — in addition to targets for emissions reduction.
Environmentalists sometimes worry that carbon removal projects exist just to delay the transition away from fossil fuels. I want to put some of these concerns to bed directly. Carbon removal is not and should not become an excuse to avoid aggressively reducing emissions.
First, we must clearly define carbon removal, as it is different from carbon capture. Carbon capture technology stops carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere at their source, such as a cement plant, which allows companies to claim carbon neutrality because they capture carbon as they emit it.
Carbon removal methods, on the other hand, focus on taking out carbon emissions that are already in the atmosphere, including those that have lingered in the air for centuries. As a result, carbon removal allows for net-negative emissions, where more carbon is taken out of the atmosphere than emitted.
Succinctly, carbon capture operates as a preventative measure for carbon emissions, while carbon removal aims for restoration of the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that carbon removal is necessary for the world to even reach net-zero. We need to reduce new emissions and remove existing emissions simultaneously, plain and simple.
There are activities, such as those in the industrial and agricultural sectors that are still difficult to decarbonize. At last count, about 20 per cent of emissions are coming from non-fossil fuel sources. Rather than villainizing the people in those sectors as they try to find solutions — we must all work together.
This is where carbon removal can come into play to help address the residual emissions left from necessary activities like making cement and steel, as we transition lower hanging fruit to clean energy sources as soon as possible.
To concerns that better carbon removal technology would just become an excuse for continued emissions, strong policy can keep its usage in check. Dual targets would act as accountability for carbon removal and make sure it is used to address difficult-to-decarbonize activities only, while we continue to rapidly reduce emissions across the rest of the economy. As such, Canada’s climate plan should include both emissions reductions and carbon removal targets.
There are also concerns regarding how Canadian carbon removal companies are calling for more government investment. To be clear, the ultimate goal is to have polluters pay to clean up their emissions. Although the government is a polluter itself, there will need to be private sector investment in carbon removal as well.
Unfortunately, industry is usually hesitant to pay for public goods, unless they can confirm the investment is highly effective. In the meantime, public dollars would play a catalytic role for accelerating innovation and maturing the technologies, so they can be incorporated into regulated industries where polluters pay for carbon removal.
There is more than one way to mitigate the effects of the climate crisis, and we need to take action using all the tools available to us. Global compliance markets (primarily led by government policy) are valued at USD$800 billion in 2023.
These industrial carbon-pricing systems can pay for carbon removal in the long term, but we need the government to catalyze innovation in the field and set a high bar for responsibly developing this technology, before it is mature enough for compliance markets to ensure polluters are paying for its large scale rollout.
When it comes to major climate infrastructure investment, people are hesitant because they want big results, immediately. This is unrealistic. It took years for the world to get to this point in the climate crisis, it will similarly take us time to recover from the damage. The carbon removal sector is innovating to clean up emissions — and dual targets of both cutting emissions and cleaning them up will ensure carbon removal is only used as a force for good.
Na’im Merchant is the co-founder and executive director of Carbon Removal Canada.
Comments
Yes, we must capture carbon, but with nature-based solutions (regenerative agriculture, forestry, wetlands restoration, etc.). These solutions are cheaper, better-known and more operation-ready that carbon capture technologies that, for the most part, have yet to prove their profitability and their might.
In theory, to remove carbon is a great idea. But, to make a significant dent in the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere, we must remove billions of tonnes!
Presently, there is approx 420 parts per millions(ppm) of carbon in the air. To remove those billions of tonnes of CO2, we must filter how many trillions of tonnes of air???
A couple of comments:
You: "We need to reduce new emissions."
Me: YES, EXACTLY. It doesn't matter how much carbon we "capture" or "remove" if we're still spewing billions of tons of CO2 every year. Call them nega-tonnes (after the Lovins's) or whatever, but they can't be spewed.
YOU: "Rather than villainizing the people in those sectors as they try to find solutions — we must all work together."
ME: C'mon, we don't "villainize" the people working in those sectors. We villainize — and rightly — those deeply profiting off those sectors.
YOU: "... to help address the residual emissions left from necessary activities like making cement and steel ...."
ME: We really need to start imagining, envisioning and creating a world that isn't based on concrete and steel being "necessary." Besides the enormous emissions from their manufacture, concrete and steel are a huge contributor to our species' disconnection from the rest of Nature, which is a huge cause of the problems we're facing.