{"id":29425,"date":"2019-02-01T11:13:51","date_gmt":"2019-02-01T16:13:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.tun.com\/blog\/?p=29425"},"modified":"2022-03-16T09:42:14","modified_gmt":"2022-03-16T13:42:14","slug":"capturing-carbon-to-fight-climate-change-is-dividing-environmentalists","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.tun.com\/blog\/capturing-carbon-to-fight-climate-change-is-dividing-environmentalists\/","title":{"rendered":"Capturing Carbon to Fight Climate Change Is Dividing Environmentalists"},"content":{"rendered":"

Environmental activists are teaming up with fresh faces in Congress to advocate for a Green New Deal<\/a>, a bundle of policies that would fight climate change while creating new jobs and reducing inequality. Not all of the activists agree on what those policies ought to be.<\/p>\n

Some 626 environmental groups<\/a>, including Greenpeace, the Center for Biological Diversity and 350, recently laid out their vision in a letter they sent to U.S. lawmakers. They warned that they \u201cvigorously oppose\u201d several strategies, including the use of carbon capture and storage<\/a> \u2013 a process that can trap excess carbon pollution that\u2019s already warming the Earth, and lock it away<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In our view, as a political philosopher<\/a> who studies global justice and an environmental social scientist<\/a>, this blanket opposition is an unfortunate mistake. Based on the need to remove carbon from the atmosphere<\/a>, and the risks in relying on land sinks like forests<\/a> and soils<\/a> alone to take up the excess carbon, we believe that carbon capture and storage could be a powerful tool for making the climate safer<\/a> and even rectifying historical climate injustices<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Global inequality<\/h2>\n

We think the U.S. and other rich countries should accelerate negative emissions research for two reasons.<\/p>\n

First, they can afford it. Second, they have a historical responsibility<\/a> as they burned a disproportionate amount of the carbon causing climate change today. Global warming is poised to hit the least-developed countries, including dozens that were colonized by these wealthier nations<\/a>, the hardest.<\/p>\n

Consider this: The entire African continent emits less carbon<\/a> than the U.S., Russia or Japan.<\/p>\n

Yet Africa is likely to experience climate change impacts sooner and more intensely than any other region<\/a>. Some African regions are already experiencing warming increases at more than twice the global rate<\/a>. Coastal and island nations like Bangladesh, Madagascar and the Marshall Islands face near or total destruction<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But the world\u2019s richest nations have been slow to endorse and support<\/a> the necessary research, development and governance for negative emissions technologies.<\/p>\n

Bad track record with coal<\/h2>\n

What explains the objections from climate justice advocates?<\/p>\n

The U.S. has heavily funded experiments with carbon capture and storage<\/a> to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new coal-fired power plants<\/a> since George W. Bush\u2019s presidency<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Those efforts have not paid off, partly because of economics. Natural gas and renewable energy have become cheaper<\/a> and more popular<\/a> than coal for generating electricity.<\/p>\n

Only a handful of coal-fired power plants are under construction<\/a> in the U.S., where closures<\/a> are routine. The industry is in trouble<\/a> everywhere, with few exceptions<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In addition, carbon capture with coal has a bad track record<\/a>. The biggest U.S. experiment<\/a> is the US$7.5 billion Kemper power plant in Mississippi<\/a>. It ended in failure in 2017<\/a> when state power authorities ordered the plant operator to give up on this technology and rely on natural gas instead<\/a>.<\/p>\n