nytimes.com
www.nytimes.com

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/14921311

I think they’re covering scope 1 and 2 emissions, but not scope 3. That is to say that they’re trying to limit emissions during extraction, transportation of fossil fuels, and refining (and from the electricity those use) but not from when the fossil fuels are burned.

  • Sundial@lemm.ee
    10·
    17 hours ago

    An alliance of the largest oil sands companies has proposed installing equipment to capture carbon dioxide and then send it through pipelines to store it in underground reservoirs, a process known as carbon capture and storage.

    The federal government said it would offer energy companies tens of billions of dollars in tax credits to subsidize those systems, though there is still skepticism about the technical and financial viability of large-scale carbon capture.

    I can’t believe we’re still looking at helping pay some of the richest companies in the world to clean up a mess they directly contributed to and made worse.

    • Avid Amoeba
      2·
      15 hours ago

      Tens of billions? What the fuck. This is completely insane.

    • sbv@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      16 hours ago

      I can’t believe we’re still looking at helping pay some of the richest companies in the world to clean up a mess they directly contributed to and made worse.

      Whoa whoa whoa! It’s shareholder value we’re talking about here! Responsibility is fine and good for people, but we’re talking about the pocketbooks of the rich!

    • streetfestivalEnglish
      1·
      15 hours ago

      to clean up a mess they directly contributed to and made worse

      Not only that but they spend so much money on advertising and lobbying to undermine public understanding and remediation of. These ‘pillage the planet now and deny all negative effects’ assclowns are the last people who should be given money to address aspects of the climate crisis. They need federal oversight, not funding