1

It seems that CCS projects and technologies are not going to be included in UN-backed carbon reducing mechanism at COP15 in Copenhagen.

If carbon reduction is really urgent matter and any delay will demand more expenses to keep the temperature on the target level, why don't they allow CCS now and decide on long term responsibility for storage and possible seepage later?

Isn't it better to reduce some emissions already now rather than postpone the solution for years? Figuratively speaking, if the house is burning, it's not the right time to discuss who is responsible for that, but it's time to save people.

flag

1 Answer

1

Possible reasons:

  • Gaps in technology and uncertainty for potential environmental risks vs alternative options

  • Geological uncertainty of the reservoir future behavior (Some aspects of storage security, such as leakage up abandoned wells, may be realized only over a long time frame, thus posing a risk to future generations)

  • Economical and social barriers

  • CCS appears as centralized approach to emission mitigation

  • Current injection practices do not require any long-term monitoring or verification regime. Cost of monitoring and verification regimes and risk of leakage will be important in managing liability.

  • Long-term CO2 geological storage also involves intergenerational liability and thus justification of such activities involves an ethical dimension

More info related to pros and cons of CCS could be found at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports_carbon_dioxide.htm

link|flag

Your Answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.