From the FF industry’s perspective, it doesn’t need to lower emissions to work. It only needs to help reassure people (who lean towards or support climate change denialism) that maintaining our dependence on fossil fuels and continuing to develop more projects isn’t incompatible with the survival of our species. This is a PR thing more than anything else

Energy efficient carbon capture is like a perpetual motion machine.

Well, I suppose the environment can take one more for the team.

Hubert Farnsworth

This is the best summary I could come up with:

There are also a number of direct air capture projects in the early stages, including one off the coast of British Columbia that would sequester carbon under the ocean, and another in Quebec that received $25 million in provincial government funding.

The analysis concluded the technology is “energy intensive, slow to implement, and unproven at scale, making it a poor strategy for decarbonizing oil and gas production.”

In another recent report, the International Energy Agency said oil and gas companies need to start “letting go of the illusion” that “implausibly large” amounts of carbon capture are the solution to the global climate crisis.

Angela Carter, an associate professor at Memorial University who studies environmental policies, and one of the authors of the IISD report, said carbon capture should not be considered a “viable solution” for reducing emissions.

Despite questions around the effectiveness of carbon capture when implemented on a larger scale, many climate scientists and energy experts say it can be at least part of the solution in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, the president of this year’s conference, and the head of United Arab Emirates’ state-owned oil company ADNOC, has promoted carbon capture as a way to reduce emissions.

The original article contains 1,213 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 84%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!