Plans for a $200-million carbon capture facility in southwestern Manitoba have sparked a fierce debate over the costs, benefits, and even the very premise of climate change action, highlighting a growing divide in Canadian and global attitudes toward environmental policy. The project, proposed by Montreal-based startup Deep Sky and endorsed by Manitoba’s NDP government, aims to remove at least 30,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere annually, eventually scaling up to a staggering 500,000 tonnes per year. Yet, as the province moves toward legislative support and a signing ceremony with the Chanupa Wakpa Dakota Nation, critics are raising tough questions about feasibility, effectiveness, and the political motivations behind such climate initiatives.
Deep Sky, which already operates a carbon removal plant in Alberta, has not finalized the technology or precise location for its Manitoba facility, though it is set to be built somewhere in traditional Dakota territory. Premier Wab Kinew has publicly stated the province’s intention to back the project through legislation that would qualify it for lucrative federal tax credits, a move designed to attract investment and signal Manitoba’s commitment to reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Manitoba’s Environment and Climate Change Minister Mike Moyes expressed enthusiasm for the project, even as he acknowledged its limitations. “This is a new technology, and we know that there’s going to take a lot of different pieces of that puzzle in order to get us down the path of net zero,” Moyes told CBC News from his office at the Manitoba Legislative Building. The government’s position is that carbon capture is one tool among many—complementary to efforts like energy efficiency, electrification, and renewable energy expansion.
Deep Sky CEO Alex Petre echoed that sentiment, stating, “The technology helps remove historic carbon emissions, cleaning our air and lessening extreme weather events that are damaging our communities, like the devastating wildfires Manitoba experienced this summer.” Petre’s comments tap into the region’s recent experience with destructive wildfires, positioning carbon capture as a tangible response to the mounting costs of climate-related disasters.
But not everyone is convinced. Some of the sharpest criticism comes from energy policy experts and climate activists who argue that carbon capture, especially direct air capture, is a costly distraction from more effective and immediate solutions. Philip Gass, director of Canadian energy transition policy at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), was blunt in his assessment: “I’d much rather see us spend that money on energy efficiency, heat pumps and more wind power, the electrification of transport—all things that the province is committed to.” He warned that extracting carbon from the atmosphere is “far less cost-effective than capturing it from waste streams at carbon-emitting industries, let alone employing direct efforts to actually reduce emissions in the first place.”
Gass also flagged a looming energy crunch. Manitoba Hydro, the province’s main electricity provider, has warned for two years that it no longer has the capacity to supply electricity to all new customers. The Crown corporation estimates it will need to spend tens of billions in the coming decades to increase generating capacity, build new transmission lines, and repair existing infrastructure. Manitoba Hydro is even planning a new two-turbine fuel-burning station to meet growing demand, a move that seems to run counter to the province’s clean energy ambitions.
“I would be cautious about directing a lot of megawatts to other sources at the time where we’re five to ten years away from massive, massive demand spikes for the electrification of transport,” Gass said, emphasizing that energy-intensive projects like Deep Sky’s carbon capture facility could exacerbate the strain on Manitoba’s grid.
Minister Moyes, for his part, dismissed concerns about the province’s ability to power the new facility. “There’s lots of different ways that we’re going to be generating power,” he said, pointing to upcoming wind farms and energy efficiency measures that have yet to be commissioned. Still, Deep Sky has not disclosed where it plans to source its electricity—a detail that could prove pivotal as the project moves forward.
As Deep Sky prepares for a signing ceremony in Winnipeg with the Chanupa Wakpa Dakota Nation, the debate over carbon capture is playing out against a broader backdrop of skepticism and polarization around climate policy. On October 16, 2025, syndicated columnist Ron Hart published a widely circulated opinion piece questioning the validity and urgency of climate change as a major threat. Hart lambasted political leaders like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for emphasizing climate change and white supremacy as America’s top threats, arguing that such warnings are little more than fashionable worries for liberals, “all with no quantifiable metrics to ever dispute their ‘grave’ concerns.”
Hart’s op-ed, published just one day after climate activists vandalized the Mona Lisa in Paris to protest inaction on global warming, accused the media and the left of bullying dissenters and using violence to advance their cause. He dismissed climate change science as alarmist, suggesting that “maybe the earth just warms and cools over time” and that politicians are simply seeking more power and tax revenue. “To believe all the climate change propaganda, you must subscribe to the following: The Earth is warming, man is causing it (a fraction of a degree), it’s not cyclical and politicians are so smart that if we give them trillions more dollars, they can change the temperature of the Earth,” Hart wrote.
Hart also cited a leaked United Nations study claiming solar activity played a greater role in global warming than previously thought, and pointed to examples like growing glaciers and Miami not being underwater as evidence that climate fears are overblown. He ridiculed prominent climate activists such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Greta Thunberg, attributing their warnings to political theater and youthful naivety.
This skepticism is not uncommon, especially among those wary of government intervention and large-scale spending. Critics argue that climate policy is often driven by ideology rather than evidence, and that expensive solutions like carbon capture may serve more as political symbols than practical tools. Supporters, however, counter that the risks of inaction are far greater, pointing to the increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events, mounting insurance costs, and the moral imperative to reduce humanity’s environmental footprint.
As Manitoba navigates these competing pressures, the fate of Deep Sky’s carbon capture facility may serve as a bellwether for the future of climate policy in Canada and beyond. Will governments double down on ambitious technological solutions, or shift focus to proven, cost-effective methods of emission reduction? And can public trust be rebuilt in an era of deep political and scientific polarization?
For now, the debate continues—with billions of dollars, the health of the planet, and the credibility of climate action all hanging in the balance.