This article discusses a shift of action regarding climate change mitigation upstream into supply-side policy. Outlining a supply-side approach requiring fossil fuel producers to take progressive action to minimise and eliminate the climate impacts of their products. The concepts discussed rely on large-scale geosequestration capable of depositing carbon into geological reservoirs at rates keeping pace with those at which carbon is extracted by fossil fuel producers.
In order to keep warming below 2oC, 6000MtCO2/year must be captured by 2050. An analysis of the build out rate of CCS projects to 2050 suggests that the rate is 100 times too slow to reach this target. This paper advocates two actions for countries to address this. The first is to commercially assess CO2 storage, the second to assign a certificate of CO2 storage onto producers of fossil carbon mandating a progressively increasing proportion of CO2 to be stored.
This article presents an overview of supply-side climate policies, discusses options for fossil fuel producers to establish proactive and progressive approaches toward climate change mitigation, and assesses factors and challenges that could influence their success.
Both CCS and negative emission technology (NET) are now required to manage the carbon stock in earth’s atmosphere and oceans. Existing policies have failed to develop large cost CCS mega-projects. Carbon certificates could be used to link the extraction of carbon to an obligation to store a percentage of emissions.
This report assesses the use of CO2 certificates to encourage deployment of CCS in Norway. By modelling the direct costs of CCS Certificates for Norway, a net fossil carbon exporter, the report finds that a 1.5oC compliant sequestration pathway could be achieved at a cost of 3-13% of cumulative expected fossil fuel profits over the 2020-2045 period.
The North Sea offshore oil and gas industry requires re-invention through lower cost utilisation and identification of new sources of revenue. UK climate policy requires a substantial decrease of carbon emissions while reducing the associated costs and regulatory burden on industry, taxpayers and consumers. These joint objectives can be secured by providing the Oil and Gas Authority with the power to require fossil fuel companies to sequester carbon dioxide equivalent to a small but rising fraction of the fossil carbon they extract or import into the UK.
The fact that cumulative carbon dioxide emissions are more important than annual emission rates calls for a fresh approach to climate change mitigation. One option would be a mandatory link between carbon sequestration and fossil fuel extraction.
This report forms part of a series of 12 policy briefings prepared by a global consortium of scientists, released by the Royal Society ahead of the UN Climate Summit, COP26. This briefing details the requirement for, technology behind, current research and development surrounding CCS and the actions required to deliver and progress CCS in the UK.
This report presents the Carbon Takeback Obligation (CTBO). The approach regulates the carbon content of fossil hydrocarbons brought to the market in order to promote the transition towards renewable sources of energy production.
This report assesses the reasons why, despite the central role CCS plays in many deep decarbonisation trajectories, CCS has failed to build momentum. After identifying the problems, the report suggests policy and market mechanisms to stimulate investment across the stages of deployment.
This paper proposes an incentive mechanism for CCS. The mechanism is built upon a tradeable asset class specific to CCS: the carbon storage unit (CSU). 1 CSU would represent a verified tonne of Carbon stored or sequestered in a geological reservoir. Crucially, this system would be able to both work in tandem with emissions reduction-based policies and create a price signal to incentivise the building of CCS systems.
The current trajectory of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) suggests reaching Net Zero by 2058. This paper proposes establishing 2050 as the year beyond which no further emissions allowances are issued by EU Governments, a new unit of measurement for a tonne of CO2 removed from the atmosphere and sequestered and a change to the compliance structure such that one removal unit could be surrendered against one tonne of CO2 emitted.
The International Energy Agency estimates that even a modest share of the global Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) market could add between £5bn and £9bn to UK GVA by 2030. This report performs an in-depth analysis of 6 promising business models for CCUS, including a CCS Obligation.
This report discusses different business models for Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage (CCUS). The report endorses 7 variations on the base-case scenario, which represents the creation of a private sector owned CO2 Transport and Storage business. There is also a discussion of the risks involved in the business models.
A UK Climate Policy designed to increase the uptake of CCS would establish a series of government agencies, economic regulations and certification as well as a CCS Obligation system from the late 2020s.
Contributing to accelerating the deployment of CCS with a global goal of 1GtCO2 being stored annually by 2030 through an innovative funding solution and a collaborative effort to map CO2 storage potential.
This presentation describes the current situation of stationary fossil fuel use as a share of, the growing, global energy consumption. It then advocates use of a Carbon Take Back Obligation (CTBO) to drastically increase the speed of implementation of CCS technologies
This presentation describes how CCS Certificates could be utilised in the economy of Norway, a country that exports fossil fuels amounting to more than ten times its domestic consumption each year. In this example, CCS would cost 5-21% of Norway’s 2020-2045 petroleum profits.
This presentation advocates the use of a combination of Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) and Carbon Storage Units (CSUs) to overcome the challenges facing CCS adoption, namely: The limited number of scenarios in which it is currently economically viable; lack of recognition of its importance in Climate Policies and the lack of a “store side” price signal.