Why capture carbon when it’s so much easier to capture a government?

As they would certainly agree in the C-suites of Calgary, why bother trying to capture carbon when you can capture a government?

Anyway, it’s starting to look like the goal of one is pretty much the same as the goal of the other. To wit, to stop Ottawa from putting a hard cap on pollution or doing anything else about our boiling planet while enabling continued expansion of fossil fuel extraction and processing plants in northern Alberta as long as a bit more profit can also be squeezed out of the sand up there.

Remember, the logic of capitalism is relentless: it will always choose maximum profit no matter the ultimate consequences. 

So it would seem that the Pathways Alliance, the group of huge companies that represents 95 per cent of Canada’s oilsands production, is quite happy to put any government between a rock and a hard place if that is what it takes to crank up the geological pressure required to maximize profits in the short term.

Of course, a properly captured government like the one we have in Alberta (regardless of the party in power, it would seem) is happy to oblige without very much pressure required. 

This is especially true when the provincial government in question is also openly engaged in a partisan campaign to topple the Liberal federal government led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the next national election and replace it with Conservatives more amenable to continued oil and gas development, with or without carbon capture. 

Consider, then, the revelation yesterday of a report by Deloitte Canada that was commissioned by Alberta’s United Conservative Party Government. 

A copy of the report was obtained by The Canadian Press, as they say, but it is difficult not to wonder if the UCP may have had a hand in that revelation since the report’s key conclusion supports the essentially identical positions taken by the both the industry and the party.

At any rate, the government seemed to have a fully fleshed out news release about the report waiting in the out-basket in the event someone decided to leak it. 

The report, as the CP story put it, conveniently “supports Alberta’s position that a mandated cap would lead to production curtailments and severe economic consequences.”

Among those consequences, according to the government’s news release, singing in harmony with the industry’s wishes: “Approximately 90,000 lost jobs across Canada. Of this, Alberta is estimated to lose 55,000 jobs. …”

This would, as the CP reporter also pointed out, contradict the Trudeau Government’s position “that its proposed cap on greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector would be a cap on pollution, not a cap on production.”

So the report’s forecast of job losses and economic decline, however accurate it may turn out to be, are the stick with which Canadian voters can be beaten so that the industry and the UCP can have their way. 

And the carrot? 

Is it supposed to be that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) – that magical multi-billion-dollar boondoggle – can make our troubles all go away?

That after all was supposedly the rationale behind the Pathways Alliance – described by the CBC as a group “promoting carbon capture and storage as the key to reducing emissions while still increasing production.” 

The plan touted by the Pathways Alliance – which includes Canadian Natural Resources, Cenovus, Imperial, and Suncor – would see a massive, $16.5-billion carbon capture and storage network built in northern Alberta to create social license for more oilsands production. 

It’s advertised on public transit vehicles across Canada – leading to greenwashing accusations by environmental groups last year. 

But, it turns out, apparently industry players are not all that enthusiastic about carbon capture if they have to pay for it themselves!

Referencing the proposal by the Pathways Alliance, the CP story began by stating: “Canadian oil and gas companies facing a federally imposed emissions cap will decide to cut their production rather than invest in too-expensive carbon capture and storage technology.” (Emphasis added.)

On page 17, the report says: “… implementing CCS would render high-cost assets economically unviable. Low-cost assets would remain economically viable even after investing in CCS. Nonetheless, curtailing production would be a more cost-effective option compared to investing in CCS. Hence, the most likely outcome is that producers would opt to curtail production if confronted with the proposed Cap in 2030.”

“Furthermore,” the report continues on the next page, “it is important to note that once implemented, the investment in CCS is irreversible. However, production curtailment can be reversed. Considering these factors, we do not foresee any oil-sands CCS investments being implemented.” (Emphasis added.)

In other words, there will be no carbon capture unless we taxpayers pay for it too.

So, about that carrot: There is no carrot. 

And if carbon capture turns out not to work, as seems quite possible, you can be sure we’ll be told it was our fault because we picked the government, and governments shouldn’t pick winners and losers, so we’ll have to pay the sunk cost of that too. 

University of Alberta economist Andrew Leach summed up the conclusions of the Deloitte report in three posts on social media last night: 

• It “appears to be based on a scenario where a) Canada doesn’t meet its targets; b) the world takes no further material action on climate change; and c) carbon capture and storage is not a viable solution to oil and gas emissions.
• “And, not surprisingly, if we assume a world not acting on climate change (i.e. a world that places no incremental value on low-carbon oil and gas production), we find that it’s not worth investments to decarbonize hypothetical new or existing Canadian oil and gas production.
• “… It’s interesting that this is the story that Alberta wants to tell the world (and the country) about its resources.”

Well, maybe the government and the industry think pretty painted buses will do the trick. 

Despite constant UCP complaints, last coal-fired plant in Alberta goes offline

Meanwhile, amid all the sound and fury about the dire economic effect of reducing pollution, a good news environmental story was almost forgotten yesterday. The last coal-fired electricity generation plant in Alberta went offline Sunday morning – six years earlier than that goal was expected to be reached.

Twenty years ago, about 80 per cent of Alberta’s electricity was generated by burning dirty coal. 

The facility, near the village of Warburg about 60 kilometres southwest of Edmonton, is expected to be converted to natural-gas generation. 

“Capital Power is immensely proud to cease coal-fired operations at our Genesee Generating Station and deliver up to 3.4 million tonnes of annual emissions reductions through our Genesee Repowering project,” Capital Power VP Jason Comandante said in a news release.

“This is proof that good policy design with targets matter,” said NDP Energy and Climate Critic Nagwan Al-Guneid on social media. 

Noting that the Alberta Federation of Labour was founded by coal miners, President Gil McGowan honoured their contribution to Alberta but added that “change came for coal’s role in the energy industry, and change won’t stop there. 

“The economics of oil and gas are shifting fast,” he said – a fact that would nevertheless be disputed by the UCP. “The Alberta Federation of Labour will continue to fight to make sure there are jobs and support for energy workers for decades to come.”

The UCP appears to have said nothing. But then, the successful coal phase-out was an NDP initiative, and Premier Danielle Smith has been trying to blame the NDP for a variety of ills, all on the UCP’s watch, mostly caused by Conservative mismanagement of the electricity grid.