Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
So should a plan for Carbon Sequestration be able to claim it would prevent CO2 being released in the atmosphere?
What recognized international test exists for carbon capture at scale that meets the standard of this law? Is several years of successful storage a sufficient test? I think companies are right to be concerned given the lack of legal standard around the test.
None of them want to be the test case for this law. Over time as case law is established it could end in a reasonable place.
|
Maybe. Since everyone is so caught up on 'internationally recognized tests', let's review and make sure we are actually using the right language, because the two paragraphs are being conflated.
Quote:
(b.#1) makes a representation to the public in the form of a statement, warranty or guarantee of a product’s benefits for protecting or restoring the environment or mitigating the environmental, social and ecological causes or effects of climate change that is not based on an adequate and proper test, the proof of which lies on the person making the representation;
(b.#2) makes a representation to the public with respect to the benefits of a business or business activity for protecting or restoring the environment or mitigating the environmental and ecological causes or effects of climate change that is not based on adequate and proper substantiation in accordance with internationally recognized methodology, the proof of which lies on the person making the representation; or
|
So b#2 applies much moreso than #1.
Is the science on this 'settled'? Probably not, as there are a lot of caveats with CCS. But if the company can produce sufficient evidence from reliable sources (most likely peer-reviewed publications held in high regard...aka internationally recognized methodology), then sure.
But more likely, as we see is so many other promotional statements, I would expect to see an * that qualifies any statement on a CCS proposal that specifies the scope and parameters.
And you know, we could also just trust that the Competition Bureau is competent, like we do* with most other law enforcement agencies (*for the most part...).