Electrifying industry and reducing the use of plastics and petrochemicals, these advocates argue, would be far cheaper and safer. They also say that, even if the technology is able to cut carbon pollution from petrochemical plants or refineries, it won’t address other toxic chemicals those operations send into communities that are home to many people of color. They argue that the money being appropriated by Congress is likely to allow polluting power plants and petrochemical facilities to continue operating longer into the future, while doing little to reduce the nation’s emissions. Some environmentalists say that is exactly what is happening. That nuance is hard to convey.” But, he added, “it is going to be a bit of a political and commercial scramble for funds here, because the oil and gas companies, the electricity companies, are going to want the money to go towards traditional CCS,” which is attached to smokestacks. Simon Nicholson, co-director of the Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy at American University, said that if government support for carbon capture and storage is used to help test direct air capture, “then it’s a near-term investment that might have long-term positive implications. Many scientists and policy experts also say the world might need to remove carbon dioxide from the air decades from now, and a nascent form of carbon capture technology known as “direct air capture” could help. Axelrod said it could help reduce emissions from some industrial processes, like manufacturing cement. The budget legislation is also expected to include a program that would force utilities to lower emissions and could provide additional funding to fossil fuel power plants that are fitted with carbon capture technology.Ĭarbon capture and storage does have supporters outside of industry. The Biden administration and some lawmakers have indicated they approve of the idea. As part of the reconciliation bill, industry lobbyists are pushing to expand an existing tax credit for the technology that has already given hundreds of millions of dollars to oil companies. With the infrastructure bill passed, Senate Democrats have turned their attention to a budget reconciliation package that could provide even more support for carbon capture and storage. Please take a look at the new openings in our newsroom. “On the flip side, carbon capture has a mixed record, is not widely deployed anywhere, and if it holds promise, it holds promise in the next decade or the next 20 or 30 or 40 years.” “We know today that renewable energy is ready to be deployed, it works, it helps decarbonize the energy sector,” said Josh Axelrod, a senior advocate in the nature program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. Many environmental advocates argue that the massive government support would be better spent on proven climate solutions like wind and solar energy, which receive far less in direct funding under the infrastructure bill. Just a single bill-the bipartisan infrastructure legislation that passed the Senate last week and is now headed to the House of Representatives- includes more than $12 billion in direct support for carbon capture, and could unlock billions more through other programs, according to the recent drafts. These policies have fast-tracked environmental reviews and allocated billions in federal funding for research and development of carbon capture and storage, or CCS, technologies that pull carbon dioxide out of smokestacks or directly from the air before storing it underground. Over the last year, energy companies, electrical utilities and other industrial sectors have been quietly pushing through a suite of policies to support a technology that stands to yield tens of billions of dollars for corporate polluters, but may do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |