The Dangerous Idiocy of Carbon Sequestration
Contributed by Chuck Campbell
On its face, the idea of carbon sequestration, as currently embraced by Governor Dunleavy, seems like a simple one. Remove CO2 from the atmosphere, concentrate it, and imprison it somewhere else, either deep underground or in trees where some of it would end up anyway. It sounds like the magic bullet – a “green” solution that everyone can finally agree with. Maybe even... too good to be true?
As it turns out, this operation, also known as “carbon capture” or “carbon offset” and an integral part of the infamous “cap & trade” scheme, definitely is too good to be true. Both the concept and Dunleavy’s specific plan are rife with subtleties, contradictions, and falsehoods, concealed beneath a layer of risible idiocy, sure to put Alaska on the road to ruin.
The problems start from the foundation. Per the Alaska Beacon,
“...To compensate for carbon dioxide emitted by their business, a company pays to preserve a section of forest — even a kelp forest underwater. As plants grow, they absorb carbon dioxide from the air, locking it in wood or seaweed.
“If a tree isn’t cut down or burned, that’s a net benefit to the atmosphere.
“Third parties, both in the United States and internationally, operate a market in surveying forests and selling credits based on those forests’ ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere.”
In other words, these schemes pay someone to sit on land and do nothing with it, in the process creating from thin air a “product” which is based on nothing, corresponds to nothing of value, and only exists or has nominal value because some governments demand penance for productivity.
The party line, from DNR Commissioner-designee John Boyle as quoted on Dunleavy’s website, says this: “Carbon management will complement—and in some cases enhance—Alaska’s existing industries like forestry, oil and gas, mining, tourism, and outdoor recreation… These bills do not lock up State land, rather, they unleash new opportunities. Carbon offset projects will not prevent mineral development, timber harvests, new oil and gas exploration, or infrastructure development. Land within the carbon offset program area will still be available for hunting, fishing, camping and recreational activities...”
We get to go green, make money, and keep our industries too. Isn’t that great? The problem is, it’s not possible. While that should be obvious from the “paying to preserve forests” thing, here’s the Alaska Beacon again:
“The other piece of legislation would allow companies to pay to preserve forested state land from logging and development, offsetting any greenhouse gas pollution they make...
“The Alaska Center, which advocates for environmental protections in the state, noted on its website that the governor’s proposal requires a delicate tap dance in order to ‘convince skeptical members (of the Legislature) the benefit of leaving certain forests un-clearcut, certain wetlands un-mined, etc.’”
So no, this plan would absolutely lock up land. It is the perfect back-door way for those against development and industry to block and, eventually, punish both. Furthermore, surveying Alaska’s forests for the project will take years, and no one seems to know yet how many, or what it will cost.
The “carbon offset industry” is, itself, dubious. A recent Guardian article revealed that Verra, a major “certifier” of carbon credits, had been cooking the books on a truly industrial scale: not only did 94% of their projects have “no benefit to climate”, but they overstated the baseline threat to rain forests by an average of 400%… or 950%, when three projects in Madagascar with “excellent results” (whatever that means; how do you objectively measure non-deforestation?) are excluded. Nor was that all: The Guardian also found “human rights issues” with a flagship project in Peru, where residents claimed, with videos, that they had been forcibly evicted from their homes, which were then demolished.
The entire discussion becomes even more idiotic in our time of increasingly glaring mismatches between climate narrative and climate reality. With the Antarctic “front line of climate change” looking more and more like a ceasefire, and scientists unable to find an explanation that doesn’t translate to “CO2 won’t doom us after all”, it’s easy to wonder, “what’s the point?” Why spend this money and effort when the apocalypse we’re told to fear simply refuses to materialize despite rising CO2 levels?
The only explanation that makes sense is the conspiratorial one. This is a way to tangle industry in red tape, stop resource development, and advance intrusive “cap and trade” schemes. I don’t believe our Governor is a conspirator himself, but on this issue, he is plainly naive. Starting with the form of a medieval indulgence, then adding all the hallmarks of a sketchy “financial product” (whether it’s classified as one or not), is not the way forward. We need real productivity and real jobs, not “carbon offset” money for nothing.
