this post was submitted on 08 May 2024
489 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7077 readers
667 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Regions


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Shell sold millions of carbon credits for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that never happened, allowing the company to turn a profit on its fledgling carbon capture and storage project, according to a new report by Greenpeace Canada.

Under an agreement with the Alberta government, Shell was awarded two tonnes' worth of emissions reduction credits for each tonne of carbon it actually captured and stored underground at its Quest plant, near Edmonton.

This took place between 2015 and 2021 through a subsidy program for carbon, capture, utilisation and storage projects (CCUS), which are championed by the oil and gas sector as a way to cut its greenhouse gas emissions.

At the time, Quest was the only operational CCUS facility in Alberta. The subsidy program ended in 2022.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Pedantic, but you can do this by planting a forest (in a currently not forested area).

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Most of those schemes are scams in one way or another as well tho.

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Agreed. Forestation can be a large contributor to reducing climate change, but any scheme that is offered by polluting companies should be viewed with extreme scepticism.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, not saying it wouldn't help, but a lot of these schemes don't have enough oversight to guarantee that the tree you paid for is effectively planted and cared for enough that it will survive.

Realistically we'll need to do everything to tackle climate change: change away from fossil fuels, doing everything we can to sequester carbon (in a way that doesn't generate more emissions), and probably also reduce consumption in general (degrowth).

[–] LostWon@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 months ago

A bunch of young trees don't equate to old growth forests in any sense and it's even worse if the species hasn't evolved in in balance with that environment's other species and conditions.

So it's not even just that the tree needs to survive. On top of that we need to put time and resources into the right mix of regionally native trees which will thrive and integrate into their surroundings to properly reform ecosystems over numerous decades that we don't even have.

[–] Perfide@reddthat.com 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No, you can't. There are trillions of trees on earth and the impact they have on carbon emissions is relatively minimal, planting a forest or even many forests isn't going to cut it.

Not to mention that for trees to be an at all viable long term carbon capture method, you can't ever cut those trees down. If we can't leave the fucking Amazon alone, what makes you think we won't chop up that artificial forest in 50 years?

This is the same issue with kelp. Kelp has a ton of uses, and is an even better carbon sink than trees are, but to be a carbon sink you have to forgo all of those other uses because you have to literally sink the kelp to the bottom of the ocean and leave it there, because actually using it for anything just rereleases the carbon.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

You can cut down the trees and they'll still hold on to their carbon. Just don't burn them.

[–] Perfide@reddthat.com 1 points 3 months ago

Not practically. You'd have to be replacing the trees faster than you chop them down just to account for the energy(and thus carbon) used to chop them and process them. Then there's the fact that decomposition will also release the carbon, so you HAVE to use the lumber for stuff that is intended to last at least as long the tree grew, or else that tree is still a net negative.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

Not all cut timber is used for burning. Paper is still manufactured, along with strand board, particle board and plywood.

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 months ago

Not by half. Look up the rate at which we emit carbon and the sequestering abilities of a forest. You would have to cover every square inch of land with bamboo to break even.