4 ms·

FTA: > Joanna Sivasankaran, the press secretary for the Minister of Natural Resources, said, “Carbon capture utilization and storage is not a silver bullet to

FTA: > Joanna Sivasankaran, the press secretary for the Minister of Natural Resources, said, “Carbon capture utilization and storage is not a silver bullet to the climate crisis but it is an important tool on the pathway to reaching Canada’s ambitious climate goals and reducing emissions in many industries, including oil and gas.”

azinman2 5y ago
Oh I’m not suggesting to avoid gov funding research. I’d just rather see that money go to academics, gov labs, and startups rather than a multinational who has raped the Earth for decades, and helped (helps?) fund climate denial. For those companies, I’d suggest forcing them to subsidize the research rather than the public subsidize them. No to privatizing profits while socializing loses.
- WJW 5y ago
  It's a pretty pragmatic call: Shell has decades of experience with large scale chemistry operations, and the oil majors have been hiring all the smartest engineers in the field for decades, similar to how FAANG hovers up much of the software engineering talent by offering humongous salaries. If there is any company that has a decent chance at success for scaling up carbon capture technology, it is probably Shell or one of their main competitors. This type of hardware-based market is much less amenable to the type of startup-driven innovation that we see in the software world, because building a large scale chemical plant is so incredibly expensive.
- caminante 5y ago
  >I’d suggest forcing them to subsidize the research rather than the public subsidize them. I'm afraid the sanction approach would merely force Shell to limit research/commercialization efforts and take jobs and tax revenues out of Canada. You're not designing a greenfield system. But if you want to go hardline, there would be severe consequences for Canada.

4 ms·

FTA: > Joanna Sivasankaran, the press secretary for the Minister of Natural Resources, said, “Carbon capture utilization and storage is not a silver bullet to

by caminante 5y ago

azinman2 5y ago
Oh I’m not suggesting to avoid gov funding research. I’d just rather see that money go to academics, gov labs, and startups rather than a multinational who has raped the Earth for decades, and helped (helps?) fund climate denial. For those companies, I’d suggest forcing them to subsidize the research rather than the public subsidize them. No to privatizing profits while socializing loses.
- WJW 5y ago
  It's a pretty pragmatic call: Shell has decades of experience with large scale chemistry operations, and the oil majors have been hiring all the smartest engineers in the field for decades, similar to how FAANG hovers up much of the software engineering talent by offering humongous salaries. If there is any company that has a decent chance at success for scaling up carbon capture technology, it is probably Shell or one of their main competitors. This type of hardware-based market is much less amenable to the type of startup-driven innovation that we see in the software world, because building a large scale chemical plant is so incredibly expensive.
- caminante 5y ago
  >I’d suggest forcing them to subsidize the research rather than the public subsidize them. I'm afraid the sanction approach would merely force Shell to limit research/commercialization efforts and take jobs and tax revenues out of Canada. You're not designing a greenfield system. But if you want to go hardline, there would be severe consequences for Canada.