Carbon Capture and Storage: Developments under European Union and International Law

2007 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 353-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Havercroft ◽  
Ray Purdy

AbstractRecent amendments to key international legal regimes and the proposed introduction of an enabling legislative framework within Europe, have highlighted the importance of CCS as a climate mitigation option for the European Union and its Member States. This paper seeks to analyse these developments and provide an up-to-date examination of the issue of regulatory options for CCS and further proposals for the resolution of legal ambiguity.

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilfried Rickels ◽  
Alexander Proelß ◽  
Oliver Geden ◽  
Julian Burhenne ◽  
Mathias Fridahl

In one of the central scenarios for meeting an European Union-wide net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions target by 2050, the emissions cap in the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) becomes net negative. Despite this ambition, no mechanism allows for the inclusion of CO2 removal credits (CRCs) in the EU ETS to date. Amending the EU ETS legislation is required to create enabling conditions for a net negative cap. Here, we conceptually discuss various economic, legal, and political challenges surrounding the integration of CRCs into the EU ETS. To analyze cap-and-trade systems encompassing negative emissions, we introduce the effective (elastic) cap resulting from the integration of CRCs in addition to the regulatory (inelastic) cap, the latter now being binding for the net emissions only. Given current cost estimates for BECCS and DACCS, minimum quantities for the use of removals, as opposed to ceilings as currently discussed, would be required to promote the near-term integration of such technologies. Instead of direct interaction between the companies involved in emissions trading and the providers of CRCs, the regulatory authority could also transitionally act as an intermediary by buying CRCs and supplying them in turn conditional upon observed allowances prices, for example, by supporting a (soft) price collar. Contrary to a price collar without dedicated support from CRCs, in this case (net) compliance with the overall cap is maintained. EU legislation already provides safeguards for physical carbon leakage concerning CCS, making Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and Direct Air Capture and Storage prioritized for inclusion in the EU ETS. Furthermore, a special opportunity might apply for the inclusion of BECCS installations. Repealing the provision that installations exclusively using biomass are not covered by the ETS Directive, combined with freely allocated allowances to these installations, would allow operators of biomass installations to sell allowances made available through the use of BECCS. Achieving GHG neutrality in the EU by 2050 requires designing suitable incentive systems for CO2 removal, which includes the option to open up EU emissions trading to CRCs.


Author(s):  
S Tysoe

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is one of the number of approaches to mitigating climate change by reducing the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. It involves capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from large point sources such as power plants, prior to compressing, transporting, and storing it securely in geological formations. The CO2 emitted is thus prevented from entering the atmosphere. CCS is believed, by many, to have massive potential to significantly reduce GHG emissions, with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggesting that CCS could contribute between 10 and 55 per cent of the world's total carbon mitigation effort until 2100. This article considers the principal impediments to the development of CCS projects and the steps taken in the European Union (EU) to overcome them. The development of CCS requires not only the establishment of adequate funding mechanisms and, most likely, the existence of consistently higher carbon prices than those prevail today, but also the settlement of a number of key legal issues. Although much further work is required on the part of legislators, a regulatory framework for CCS is slowly growing in various jurisdictions, especially in the EU where a large step forward was taken in December 2008 with the passing of a CCS Directive.


Energies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (23) ◽  
pp. 7842
Author(s):  
Igor Tatarewicz ◽  
Michał Lewarski ◽  
Sławomir Skwierz ◽  
Vitaliy Krupin ◽  
Robert Jeszke ◽  
...  

The achievement of climate neutrality in the European Union by 2050 will not be possible solely through a reduction in fossil fuels and the development of energy generation from renewable sources. Large-scale implementation of various technologies is necessary, including bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), carbon capture and storage (CCS), and carbon capture and utilisation (CCU), as well as industrial electrification, the use of hydrogen, the expansion of electromobility, low-emission agricultural practices, and afforestation. This research is devoted to an analysis of BECCS as a negative emissions technology (NET) and the assessment of its implementation impact upon the possibility of achieving climate neutrality in the EU. The modelling approach utilises tools developed within the LIFE Climate CAKE PL project and includes the MEESA energy model and the d-PLACE CGE economic model. This article identifies the scope of the required investment in generation capacity and the amount of electricity production from BECCS necessary to meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets in the EU, examining the technology’s impact on the overall system costs and marginal abatement costs (MACs). The modelling results confirm the key role of BECCS technology in achieving EU climate goals by 2050.


Author(s):  
Katarina Trimmings ◽  
Burcu Yüksel

This chapter draws on the findings of an EU-funded project titled (‘Cross-Border Litigation in Europe: Private International Law Legislative Framework, National Courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union’ (EUPILLAR) and discusses concerns over the lack of uniformity in the interpretation and application of the key EU Private International Law Regulations (Brussels I Regulation, Brussels IIa Regulation, Rome I Regulation, Rome II Regulation, Maintenance Regulation) across the EU Member States. The chapter provides examples of differing interpretations and applications of the same EU private international law rules in the EU through examples from various EU Member States, analyses the reasons behind the non-uniform interpretation and application, and suggests specific ways to rectify these problems.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 433-462
Author(s):  
Raphael J Heffron ◽  
Lauren Downes ◽  
Marie Bysveen ◽  
Elisabeth V Brakstad ◽  
Tom Mikunda ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Robert Schütze

The European Union was born as an international organization. The 1957 Treaty of Rome formed part of international law, although the European Court of Justice was eager to emphasize that the Union constitutes “a new legal order” of international law. With time, this new legal order has indeed evolved into a true “federation of States.” Yet how would the foreign affairs powers of this new supranational entity be divided? Would the European Union gradually replace the member states, or would it preserve their distinct and diverse foreign affairs voices? In the past sixty years, the Union has indeed significantly sharpened its foreign affairs powers. While still based on the idea that it has no plenary power, the Union’s external competences have expanded dramatically, and today it is hard to identify a nucleus of exclusive foreign affairs powers reserved for the member states. And in contrast to a classic international law perspective, the Union’s member states only enjoy limited treaty-making powers under European law. Their foreign affairs powers are limited by the exclusive powers of the Union, and they may be preempted through European legislation. There are, however, moments when both the Union and its states enjoy overlapping foreign affairs powers. For these situations, the Union legal order has devised a number of cooperative mechanisms to safeguard a degree of “unity” in the external actions of the Union. Mixed agreements constitute an international mechanism that brings the Union and the member states to the same negotiating table. The second constitutional device is internal to the Union legal order: the duty of cooperation.


2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (4-1) ◽  
pp. 21-30
Author(s):  
Uğur Burç Yıldız İ ◽  
Anıl Çamyamaç

Abstract Having previously remained impartial on the Gibraltar question between Spain and Britain since both were member states, the European Union suddenly changed its position after the Brexit referendum in favor of the Spanish government at the expense of breaching international law. In doing so, the European Union, for the first time, created a foreign policy on the long-standing Gibraltar question. This article explores the reasons behind the creation of this foreign policy in support of Spain. The European Union feared that the idea of Euroscepticism may escalate among remaining member states after the Brexit referendum because of wide-spread claims that it would dissolve in the near future, fuelled by farright political parties. The European Union therefore created a foreign policy regarding Gibraltar in Spain’s favor in order to promote a “sense of community” for thwarting a further rise in Euroscepticism. While making its analysis, the article applies the assumption of social constructivism that ideas shape interests, which then determine the foreign policy choices of actors.


Environments ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (10) ◽  
pp. 108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tryfonas Pieri ◽  
Alexandros Nikitas ◽  
Arturo Castillo-Castillo ◽  
Athanasios Angelis-Dimakis

Carbon capture and utilization (CCU) is recognized by the European Union, along with carbon, capture and storage (CCS), as one of the main tools towards global warming mitigation. It has, thus, been extensively studied by various researchers around the world. The majority of the papers published so far focus on the individual stages of a CCU value chain (carbon capture, separation, purification, transportation, and transformation/utilization). However, a holistic approach, taking into account the matching and the interaction between these stages, is also necessary in order to optimize and develop technically and economically feasible CCU value chains. The objective of this contribution is to present the most important studies that are related to the individual stages of CCU and to perform a critical review of the major existing methods, algorithms and tools that focus on the simulation or optimization of CCU value chains. The key research gaps will be identified and examined in order to lay the foundation for the development of a methodology towards the holistic assessment of CCU value chains.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document