When smoke is increasingly filling a room, it is important to slow down the process. Keep in mind that the situation is still getting worse, but it is simply evolving more slowly. There comes a time when you need to start cleaning the air.
This also applies to greenhouse gases. It is true that we absolutely must focus on reducing our overall emissions. However, if humanity wants to protect itself against increasingly devastating and destructive climate events, we must also focus on eliminating carbon dioxide (CO2) present in the atmosphere.
It should be noted that CO2 continues to accumulate and remains in the atmosphere for centuries. Furthermore, a study (in English only) carried out in Norway suggests that CO accumulations2 in the atmosphere can take up to 50 years to fully impact our climate. This means that the extreme weather events we are currently experiencing could be the result of CO emissions alone.2 1970s. Even if we achieved carbon neutrality today, we would still have decades of increasingly devastating climate events until we bring CO levels back down2 observed in the atmosphere at pre-industrial levels.
The good news is that CO removal processes2 are scientifically feasible and have been demonstrated by world-class innovators to be effective. If we accelerate the pace at which these innovations are integrated into our biological and industrial systems, we may be able to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change.
This will require strong political commitment to guide our regulators on how to safely deploy new technologies and create credible carbon market structures that will attract much-needed investment. There is every indication that Canada has what it takes to become a world leader in developing and scaling up innovative methods for removing CO.2 to make them economically viable global solutions.
Where do we start if we want to make progress?
To be successful and ensure the success of private sector innovators, it will take a very entrepreneurial COVID-style approach that involves political leaders, government officials, regulators, and academics. Academia and the private sector have already made commitments to this. In general, CO reduction innovators2 who have proven technologies working in collaboration with researchers; they seek an environment where policy, regulation and investment coexist that is ready to integrate CO reduction technologies2 current and future. Equally important, many of the world’s largest companies are looking to invest in regulated carbon markets that will provide them with greater certainty.
So what is Canada doing to provide certainty to markets? Regulators need to be investment-oriented, listen carefully to carbon credit buyers, and not pursue perfection at the expense of progress. Well-regulated markets manage uncertainty by providing transparency; this transparency will allow markets to decide the different values attached to credits for different CO reduction methods.2. Currently, the two most important variables that will determine value concern the measurement of the following two elements:
- The permanence: How long will the carbon that has been removed from the atmosphere stay out of the atmosphere?
- Would there have been a reduction or elimination of emissions without the revenue generated by the sale of carbon credits?
Examples of different CO reduction methods2
There are a wide range of CO reduction methods2. Each offers different levels of permanence and additionality. However, the scale of the climate crisis is such that we all have to paddle together, which means that some credits are priced differently depending on the method of CO reduction.2. Currently, the most attractive carbon credits are associated with direct air capture (DAC) technologies that remove CO2 present in the atmosphere and store it permanently underground. There are already CDA installations in Iceland. Other installations are being built in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia.
Carbon credits tied to the CDA are the most attractive because they offer buyers the greatest certainty of both additionality and permanence. As a result, some buyers are willing to pay up to 10 times more for carbon credits tied to the CDA compared to the current federal carbon benchmark price of $80 per tonne. Our policymakers and regulators should listen very carefully to these global investors as Canada has the potential to become a premier destination for their capital investments.
CDA is not the same as CO capture and storage2 (CSC); in fact, CSC only reduces CO emissions2 from ongoing industrial activities. Returning to our initial analogy: CCS reduces the rate at which smoke enters the room but does not clean the air. It is an important method of capturing carbon “at source” (e.g., at the exit of the industrial chimney), but it has a different objective and contributes much less effectively to climate change mitigation efforts than CDA.
CO reduction methods2 Nature-based approaches use technologies to optimize and accelerate the natural processes of photosynthesis and alkalinization of the oceans to sequester carbon. Carbon sequestration techniques in agricultural soils and forests are designed to increase the efficiency of photosynthesis in a given area; on a large scale, these techniques can successfully remove large amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. As for our oceans, decades of research have shown that the oceans have been acidified due to rapid increases in CO2 into the atmosphere. Similarly, evidence has shown that this acidification can be reversed by incorporating approaches that deliberately increase alkalinity, improving the health of our oceans while permanently removing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it when the salt dissolves in seawater.
Some current technologies can help us harness and accelerate these natural processes. Unfortunately, they have been ignored. Consider Canada’s forests, for example, which are no longer carbon sinks but rather carbon sources. This trend can be reversed. However, it is only through the collection of evidence and experience that markets will be able to increasingly trust the associated levels of permanence and additionality associated with each CO reduction method.2.
So what should we do now?
First, if we are to create programs that will stimulate the investments needed to integrate a broad range of existing and new technologies, policymakers and politicians must understand the differences between CO reduction approaches.2more precisely between CDA and carbon capture “at source”.
Second, political consensus, social acceptability, regulatory flexibility and investment-friendly market structures are all essential elements for these approaches to play a key role in preserving our planet for generations to come.
It is perfectly clear that we will never succeed in stabilizing our climate if we rely solely on reducing our CO emissions.2. Some world leaders, such as Margaret Thatcher and Brian Mulroney, warned about climate change more than 30 years ago. We didn’t listen. Since then, annual CO2 emissions rates have2 worldwide have increased by more than 50%. Their warnings about the ecological, environmental, social and economic consequences are no longer mere predictions; they have instead become our reality.
Today, policymakers and regulators must reach out to investors, innovators, and entrepreneurs if our efforts are to be successful. We have never met a huge challenge without innovators and entrepreneurs, and there is no greater challenge than the current climate crisis.
The Senator Colin Deacon works to promote innovation. He chairs the Senate’s Advisory Task Force on Environment and Sustainable Development. He represents Nova Scotia.
This article was published in The Hill Times the August 15, 2024 (in English only).
