The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

What is next for CCS technologies: a comparative study of Norway and Brazil's climate mitigation strategies

Oil rig at sea. Photo Unsplash.
CCS should not be used to justify continued fossil fuel dependency, such as the extraction of oil, but rather be applied to hard-to-abate industries that have no clear decarbonisation strategy. Photo Unsplash.

Carbon Capture and Storage, CCS, technologies have been identified as key to reduce harmful emissions and to mitigate the effects of climate change. A new study, focusing on leading CCS countries, Norway and Brazil, identifies how these technologies should be implemented equitably, applied to hard-to -abate industrial sectors, and not used to justify continued fossil fuel dependency.

"CCS technologies can play an important role in helping us manage emissions. But we found that these technologies can lead to unjust outcomes and even fossil fuel lock-ins," says Lina Lefstad, PhD student at Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies, LUCSUS.

The study is a comparative assessment of how Brazil in the Global South and Norway in the Global North are justifying their CCS policies with respect to the equity principles outlined by the IPCC: focusing on sustainable development, responsibility to mitigate climate change, and the protection of vulnerable people. Equity has for the last three decades been a guiding principle for international climate work, upheld within the Paris Agreement from 2015.

Both Brazil and Norway were early to deploy CCS technologies and are seen as leading countries in technical expertise and implementation strategies for CCS. Norway was the first to do dedicated CO2 storage globally and have now expanded with pilot projects in hard-to-abate sectors like cement and waste incineration. In Brazil, CCS has been mainly used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), now expanding into ethanol production and dedicated CO2 storage.

Economic growth over social and ecological considerations

The assessment highlights how CCS policies and projects, in both Brazil and Norway, in the main prioritize economic growth over social and ecological considerations. While both countries underscore how CSS can play an important part in responsible climate action, they also frame CCS as a way to monetize climate mitigation efforts, ultimately envisioning the techniques as an option to legitimise the continued use of fossil fuel infrastructure. For example, in Brazil, recent droughts which have affected the country’s hydroelectric power facilities, leading to energy insecurity. This has contributed to justifying extending the life of coal-power facilities with the argument that some of their emissions could potentially be mitigated by adding CCS to these powerplants. 

The researchers also identify how neither Brazil nor Norway seem to be specifically cognisant of the impacts of CCS technologies on vulnerable groups. For example, in Brazil, as CCS is mainly envisioned to offset fossil fuel extraction, it does not alleviate the mines’ negative effects on air pollution, land contamination and increasing water vulnerability, potentially impacting the lives of millions of people. CCS will also require huge resources in terms of energy and water, as well as a significant financial investment. In Norway, in turn, it was suggested that the production of gas could be decarbonised by electrification, rather than through CCS, as electrification was the cheaper option. Yet, this option would use up a significant amount of the surplus energy in the area, over time potentially leading to increases in energy prices. 

"The main reason both Norway and Brazil are failing to adhere to IPCC’s equity principles are that they continue to prioritise fossil fuel extraction, which in turn impact on how they interpret sustainability, responsibility and the protection of vulnerable groups. In other words, the perceived future cost-efficiency of CCS, in combination with an apprehension to phase out fossil fuels, stand in the way for real climate mitigation efforts," says Natalia Rubiano Rivadeneira.

Another path for CCS technologies

CCS could play an important role as a technology for hard-to-abate industries like cement, waste and other industries without a clear, alternative decarbonisation pathway. Although some projects, for example in Norway, focus on these industries, this should be the main use of CCS, note the researchers, as it is within this capacity CCS can contribute the most. Other ways forward to make CCS technologies aligned with IPCC equity principles are to perform a multicriteria analysis for each CCS project. This analysis should encompass impacts on equity, environmental impacts, and costs and benefits for surrounding communities: It should also evaluate alternative approaches to emission prevention or removal.

"CCS technologies are here, but we need the political landscape to direct them towards uses that have high climate value. Going forward, each country needs to have a clear exit plan for fossil fuel extraction, and implementation strategies for how CCS can be used to handle any residual carbon emissions," says Lina Lefstad.

About CCS 

Norway: A global pioneer in CCS, Norway was the first country to establish dedicated CO2 storage. It is now expanding its expertise through a worlds’ first full-scale pilot project targeting hard-to-abate industrial sectors, namely cement production and waste incineration, as well as a storage hub in the “Longship” project.

Brazil: In Brazil, CCS development has primarily been driven by Enhanced Oil Recovery to increase fossil fuel extraction, but are now exploring new applications for the technology. This includes a significant ethanol production sector, potentially a BECCS-sector, as well as developing dedicated CO2 storage projects.

Biography

Lina Lefstad, photo.

Lina Lefstad is an Ecological Economist. She has an interdisciplinary background with a degree in International Business Management from the University of Applied Sciences in Utrecht, and a MSc in Ecological Economics from the University of Leeds. Her main research area is the political economy of climate change mitigation. Her PhD research is on carbon capture and storage technology and its climate justice implications, with a focus on how the roll-out of this technology can happen effectively, efficiently and just. Lina´s research objective is to contribute to equity and justice in socio-ecological transformations.  

Read more about Lina Lefstad