- Thematic Focus: Carbon Capture & Storage and the Law – International,Regional and National Perspectives
- Emissions market, Emissions Trading Schemes
|Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: Priorities for Development|
Thomas M. Kerr
Climate change is a major challenge. Secure, reliable and affordable energy supplies are needed for economic growth, but increases in the associated carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are the cause of major concern. About 69% of all CO2 emissions, and 60% of all greenhouse gas emissions, are energy-related.
|Carbon Capture and Storage Under the Clean Development Mechanism – An Overview of Regulatory Challenges|
The safe and secure deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage in developing countries could be a way to reconcile their economic development with the objective of climate change mitigation. The Clean Development Mechanism could provide the required additional financial incentive to enable the implementation of CCS projects. However, the inclusion of this technology in the CDM faces important regulatory challenges that cannot always be answered on the basis of the existing methodologies. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties has announced the necessity of further guidance. In this context, this article identifies and offers elements of an answer to the key issues at stake.
|Transboundary Transportation of CO2 Associated with Carbon Capture and Storage Projects: An Analysis of Issues under International Law|
The central proposition of this paper is that transboundary CO2 transportation associated with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) projects is potentially regulated, or in some cases even prohibited, under certain international treaty instruments as they currently stand. This is a significant issue, as anecdotal evidence suggests there is the potential for widespread cross-border transport scenarios, particularly in Europe.
|Long-term Viability of Carbon Capture and Storage in a European Context|
There is much discussion concerning the question whether Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a sustainable climate change mitigation option. An even more debated topic is currently whether it is affordable and economically viable on the long term. Different legal frameworks at different levels around the globe seek to provide incentives for CCS technology. This article focuses on two core aspects of economic viability, more specifically financial incentives and transparent handling of liability, and how they are dealt with at the European Union level in the CCS proposal. This approach is compared with the approaches chosen in Australia and the USA. It seems that, at all levels, more efforts are needed to make CCS viable on the long-term. Core elements to succeed are transparency and pragmatism.
|National Implementation of Carbon Capture and Storage: The Case of Germany|
Dr. Mathias Hellriegel LL.M.
Carbon emissions into the atmosphere are considered the main cause of global warming. Curbing greenhouse gas emission and, in particular, carbon dioxide emissions is thus a major objective of international, European and national policy efforts. Along this line, the German government has adopted an ambitious energy and climate programme consisting of various measures aiming at efficient climate protection.
|Crediting CO2 Sequestration – An Alternative Approach to Integrating CCS Into the EU ETS|
Inga Guddas, Dr. Timo Hohmuth, Dr. Lutz Schäfer
European power supply is largely based on fossil energy resources. The combustion of fossil fuels releases significant amounts of carbon dioxide CO2), however, which in turn contributes to a great extent to the greenhouse effect and climate change. In order to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the energy sector and other energy-intensive industries, the European Community introduced an emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) on the European level based on the European Emissions Trading Directive 2008/87/EC.
|Evaluating Links between Emissions Trading Schemes: An Analytical Framework|
Prof. Dr. Alexander Roßnagel
Emission trading systems (ETS) have been or will be implemented in more and more states and regions around the world. The objectives of such trading systems, however, can only be reached to full extend if a worldwide ETS comes into effect. Therefore, ETS are forced to join. Against that backdrop, linking of two or more ETS can be an important step towards a global ETS. This article examines whether differences between existing and planned ETS are obstacles for successful linking; to that end, it provides an analytical framework for discussion. It starts with an overview of the development of different ETS (I.), presents evaluation criteria for the assessment of linkages (II.), describes possible types of links (III.), categorises the basic decisions regarding the substantive requirements and scope of application of an ETS (IV.), and examines how different ETS designs affect the chances of a link (V.).
|Offsets in The International Emissions Market: Do Buyers Get What They Pay For?|
This paper analyses buyer preferences in the context of the market for emissions trading under the UNFCCC. The purpose of this paper is to investigate pricing of offsets (Certified Emissions Reductions or “CERs” under the UNFCCC) (through an empirical survey of two segments of the authorized CER buyer market) to understand the relationship between buyer preferences for CER carbon offsets in the context of wider policy debates surrounding the effectiveness of emissions trading markets.
|Simplifying the Procedures Governing the Accession of a Party to Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol|
The Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) under the United Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded in June that the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol (CMP) in December should “determine the necessity of simplifying existing procedures” for inscribing commitments for Annex I Parties in Annex B to the Protocol and “take appropriate action.” This conclusion recalls the ongoing problem that the procedures for joining Annex I of the Convention and Annex B of the Protocol are very timeconsuming and in practice prevent Parties from joining the respective annexes, which this paper illustrates by means of presenting the cases of Kazakhstan, Turkey, Belarus, and other countries. In the negotiating history of the Protocol, as well as in provisions from other regimes, examples of more accessible procedures can be found. They might be used to simplify the current procedures under the Protocol.