Fig 1 - uploaded by Jennie C. Stephens
Content may be subject to copyright.
The sectoral distribution of (a) authors who have contributed to the International Journal on Greenhouse Gas Control Technology from 2007 to 2010 and (b) individuals who were actively engaged in the International GHGT-9 conference in Washington DC in November 2008, and (c) individuals who were actively engaged in the GHGT-10 conference in Amsterdam, the Netherlands in September 2010.
Source publication
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a controversial climate change mitigation technology that has been receiving increased public and private investment over the past decade in several countries. During this time, a diverse international network of professionals focused on the advancement of CCS technology has emerged. Within this international CCS...
Similar publications
It is widely known that young drivers are over-represented in the crash data for reasons such as risk perception and acceptance, age, gender, experience, exposure, and social contexts. The current mitigations implemented to address this issue consist mainly of graduated driver’s licenses and parental involvement programs. However, as technology beg...
This paper examines the effectiveness of using a hedging strategy involving a basis derivative instrument to reduce the negative financial consequences of weather-related risks. We examine the effectiveness of using this basis derivative strategy for both summer and winter seasons, using both linear and nonlinear hedging instruments and the impacts...
Citations
... Since capture technologies vary significantly depending on the industry where they are applied, more common sectors, like the power sector (coal and gas-fired power plants), are often chosen for analyzing the techno-economic aspects of projects. The three main technological methods for carbon dioxide capture in major industries are precombustion, post-combustion, and oxyfuel combustion [11][12][13]. ...
The work examines current methods for the development and study of environmental, social, and governance aspects (ESG factors) in connection with international and governmental measures for sustainable development. It covers the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement, which incentivize the consideration of ESG factors, as well as the impact of ESG on the industry and investors, particularly in the oil and gas sector. The authors delve into CO2 utilization technologies (CCS, CCUS, CCU) and the challenges of their implementation in various sectors. The role of oil and gas companies in sustainable development through the implementation of CCU technologies is analyzed; methods for capturing, transporting, and utilizing CO2 are discussed, along with technologies for producing chemicals from CO2 and their efficiency. The influence of CCU technologies on Scope 1, 2, 3 emissions, defining greenhouse gas emissions, is also examined. The challenges of transitioning to sustainable development and the importance of implementing CCU projects to enhance the ESG-rating of companies are highlighted. Sound implementation of CCU projects can determine successful industrial development, especially in the oil and gas sector, by reducing carbon dioxide emissions and creating competitive products.
... Members of these networks typically have common "principled and causal beliefs but also have shared notions of validity and a shared policy enterprise" (Haas 1992 cited in Stephens et al. 2011, p. 379). Such a community is usually focused on "risks to" the advancement of the technology as opposed to "risks of" the technology, the latter often being the public's concern (Stephens et al. 2011). ...
Canada has developed extensive expertise and experience in carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS). Although CCUS has repeatedly been identified as an important option for carbon dioxide emissions reductions in the last fifteen years, it has not reached its potential largely because the technology faces challenges across a range of socioeconomic and political risks. This chapter identifies the key risks influencing public confidence in CCUS and government decision-making processes and develops recommendations for decision-makers to support public confidence in risk decision-making for CCUS. It includes in-depth interviews with decision-makers from a variety of sectors related to CCUS policy and implementation along with a comprehensive review of academic, industry, and government publications. Using the REACT framework of risk management tools (regulatory, economic, advisory, community-based, and technology), the chapter recommends a variety of risk management options that can help to strengthen public confidence in CCUS and regulatory frameworks underpinning its development. The analysis suggests that a wide variety of actions is needed in order for CCUS to make the contribution to climate mitigation that continues to be envisioned for large industrial sites.
... In general, economists agree that it is more efficient to address pollution through a direct tax on the pollutioncausing activities than through the indirect approach of targeted tax credits for certain technologies (JCS-2-15). One scholar noted that CCS subsidies are an impediment to dealing with climate change because they slow higher value investments into carbon abatement (Stephens 2011). One coal company executive bluntly assessed CCS as "neither practical or economic." ...
In the United States, as well as in other countries, governments have encour- aged the use of coal through significant tax incentives. The coal industry has received preferential treatment that amounts to the transfer of billions of dollars. This chapter argues that continuing to incentivize coal constitutes a market failure—as the price of coal does not reflect its full cost to society. Tax policy can be used as a tool to correct market failure, but, in coal’s case, tax policy exacerbates market failure by providing subsidies. The problem is less urgent than it was ten years ago, as the market failure for coal has been somewhat corrected by substitution with natural gas and renewable electric- ity generation. The chapter will begin with a discussion of coal’s changing position in world energy markets. After briefly addressing the social and environmental costs of coal, the chapter will explore the U.S. tax treatment of coal, including the theoretical basis for coal depletion, exploration and development costs, reclamation costs, and the tax credits for “refined” coal and clean-coal facilities. Finally, the chapter will consider whether the current U.S. tax treatment of coal is appropriate given climate change concerns and the dropping cost of renewable energy.
... During the literature review, we learnt from as well as de Coninck and about the growing interest around CCS and from Stephens and Liu (2012) about the emergence of the international CCS community and its capacity to influence policy. Offering different typologies of possible formations, Stephens and Liu (2011) and later Stephens (2012) discussed the different political lens through which to view and examine the nature of the international CCS community, while prompting us to further focus on its structure, its functions and how it communicates, as well as the influence it has on international policy processes. ...
As a suite of emerging technologies, carbon capture and storage (CCS) holds the potential to abate huge quantities of emissions from fossil fuel sources, making it appealing to industrialised nations seeking to mitigate climate change. Holding uncertainties around its technical viability and facing competition from low-carbon energy options, there is a need to enhance global learning and increase information sharing while removing hesitations through large-scale demonstrations. As international projects ran into difficulties, we saw a sharp increase in cooperation with China, hoping the country’s unique characteristics and circumstances might facilitate accelerated deployment. Despite showing enthusiasm, China demonstrated unclear appetite for the technologies, thus frustrating international partners. This research seeks to identify how motivated international entities can use international cooperation and communications to influence CCS development and decisions within China. It examines how the international CCS community is structured, how it functions, and how it communicates to influence CCS-related policy processes. It assesses the means and methods international parties use to cooperate, collaborate, and communicate to share information with Chinese parties about their experiences of CCS. Additionally, it seeks to better understand the motivations and behaviours of the Chinese parties engaging in CCS-related activities and what this tells us about the current and future domestic development of the technologies. Key to this investigation is to understand how international entities can employ various types of communication channels to diffuse CCS-related information that may influence Chinese decision making. This research has advanced Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations theory. Diffusionism has long been criticised as a form of elitist colonialism where linear channels are usually used to communicate pseudo-scientific arguments in order to influence a subject community. Even Rogers holds the view of a ‘centralised’ diffusion system, with expert sources using one-way communications to diffuse an innovation as a uniform package to relatively passive acceptors. Conversely, other scholars like Donald Schön, believe in ‘decentralised’ diffusion, where innovations emerge from numerous local sources and evolve as they are diffused across horizontal networks. This research challenges both theories by putting forward the proposition of a hybrid model of diffusion, which includes both centralised and decentralised elements. On the basis of a desktop scoping study of CCS-related projects and events, 840 Chinese stakeholders from Chinese government departments and agencies, state-owned enterprises and private industry, the Chinese Academy of Sciences and universities were identified. 16 case studies were conducted based on 71 quantitative data sets from an online Communications Survey, 40 qualitative semi-structured interviews in ten Chinese cities and secondary data. Understanding the structure, functions and communication influences of the International CCS Community, this thesis reveals parallel sources of CCS-related information, diffusion networks that create developed-developing country partnerships, and western strategies to influence Chinese decision-making. Moving beyond traditional CCS communications studies and investigating the emergence of new communication mechanisms, it lays out the sequencing of communication channels that have different effects on China’s CCS adoption. Through providing a comprehensive qualitative assessment of China’s appetite for CCS and the prospects for domestic adoption, it recognises the need to appeal to multiple Chinese stakeholder motivations and to bring them around a common goal. Responding to others, who have called for further analysis into how soft-governance can contribute to global diffusion frameworks and mechanisms for collaboration, I consider how alternative innovation-diffusion frameworks are employed to promote information sharing and learning by doing, acknowledging the flow of knowledge through social networks. Discovering that a hybrid model of innovation diffusion does exist, this incorporates linear and convergent communication channels. Diffusing an innovation as a uniform package that allows for reinvention, this provides opportunities for different parties to create and share information to reach a mutual understanding. As the decision making is shared between those at the top and those who may or may not wish to adopt, this holds potential to hasten the rate of adoption and accelerate technological deployment.
... Different communities of experts inform the public and decision-makers differently about how the world is, and how it ought to be. Communities distinguish themselves from one another by having different ways of framing the controversy, interpreting state interests, setting standards and developing policy and regulations (Stephens et al., 2011). ...
Studying the relationship between water expertise and the state's governance is important as it helps to explain the mechanism by which a certain group of experts rise to power, speaking for water—its challenges, and opportunities. This is particularly of concern in the times of crisis when the society does not know where to turn, and who to trust. Some aspects of this relationship have been addressed in the literature through now-familiar notions such as hydraulic bureaucracy and the hydraulic mission, in which the prevailing role of water engineers in problem framing and communicating solutions has been brought into the spotlight. However, the reciprocal nature of this relationship, particularly in difficult times when the society is fraught with fear of an uncertain future, has remained heavily under-researched. To fill this gap, this paper suggests we can productively draw on the concepts of “co-production” and “epistemic community”. Using Iran's looming water crisis, the paper provides an example of how governance and water engineering co-produce one another through an ongoing process of mutual constitution. On one hand, engineering artifacts are integral part of state-making process; while on the other hand, water engineers become the gatekeepers of knowledge-making processes. This creates a hegemonic power for water engineers, their epistemic practices, and institutions of power. This research also illustrates how this co-production reinforces the epistemic injustice in water governance by marginalizing non-engineering communities most particularly indigenous knowledge-holders. This is, of course, a great concern as it can lead to depoliticization of the water crisis, monopolization of water science, and demonization of participation in water governance.
... They typically have common "principled and causal beliefs but also have shared notions of validity and a shared policy enterprise" (Haas (1992) cited in Stephens et al. (2011, p. 379)). Such a community is usually focused on "risks to" the advancement of the technology as opposed to "risks of" the technology, the latter often being the public's concern (Stephens et al., 2011). In the international epistemic community for CCUS, Stephens et al. (2011) identified a prevalence of those representing business, government, and academia, with a more limited participation of individuals representing non-government organizations. ...
... Such a community is usually focused on "risks to" the advancement of the technology as opposed to "risks of" the technology, the latter often being the public's concern (Stephens et al., 2011). In the international epistemic community for CCUS, Stephens et al. (2011) identified a prevalence of those representing business, government, and academia, with a more limited participation of individuals representing non-government organizations. ...
... What will be the systemic (indirect) impacts of large-scale CCS implementation on the dynamics of the transitions needed to address climate change? This debate takes place both in society (Boyd et al., 2017;Feenstra et al., 2010;Greenpeace, 2008;Karimi et al., 2016;Terwel et al., 2012) and in research (Blackford et al., 2009;Ha-Duong and Loisel, 2009;Shackley and Thompson, 2012;Stephens et al., 2011;Vergragt, 2012;Vergragt et al., 2011). Narratives vary from CCS as a cost saver (IPCC, 2014b) and recently a contributor to a just transition (Swennenhuis et al., 2020), to CCS as 'false hope' (Greenpeace, 2008) and reinforcing existing fossil fuel-based carbon lock-ins (Vergragt et al., 2011). ...
... Crowding out (Fig. 4) (Greenpeace, 2008), (Stephens et al., 2011), (Vergragt et al., 2011), (Stephens, 2015) CCS costs billions and it's an end of pipe solution …. I would then rather spend billions on the hydrogen solution and then you have solution for the next generations. ...
Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) can reduce CO2 emissions, but there is disagreement on its role. The disagreement is reflected in stark differences in stakeholders’ narratives on CCS. In the Netherlands, one extreme narrative focusses on CCS as part of a just transition and another on CCS as contributing to carbon lock-in. These narratives reflect different expectations of dynamic feedbacks around CCS deployment in the specific Dutch industrial context. This paper describes an alternative narrative that can advance the debate on what role CCS may play. Qualitative system dynamics based on interviews with experts is applied to identify the systemic feedback mechanisms that drive the dynamics of CCS in the Dutch industrial system transition, according to the two narratives. We find that CCS may reinforce carbon lock-in through the feedback mechanisms of legitimising, crowding out, and integration, and that CCS may play a part in a just climate transition through employment, economic, and environmental mechanisms. We combine these mechanisms into our alternative framing of CCS that could align the interests of different stakeholders: regulating CCS carefully to maximise its social and climate benefits and minimise the build-up of vested interests and carbon lock-in.
... Development of closed epistemic communities resistant to external critique and seeking to control their influence over science-policy interface (Stephens et al., 2011). ...
We propose actions to guide collaboration between ‘natural’ and ‘social’ science disciplines in marine environmental issues. Despite enthusiasm for interdisciplinarity on environmental issues, institutional and disciplinary barriers remain for interdisciplinary working in practice. This paper explores what natural and social scientists need from each other for more effective impact assessment in the marine environment. We reflect on collaboration between natural- (especially marine biology) and social scientists (especially environmental sociology) researching the Tomakomai CCS Demonstration Project in Japan; including subsequent expansion of the research team and wider evaluation of project outcomes. We identify two areas of mutual support: community and stakeholder engagement on marine monitoring; and identification of points in regulatory/policy processes where qualitative findings may gain traction alongside quantitative results. We suggest interdisciplinary collaboration for marine environmental research could be helped by making time to learn from each other within projects; and by working together more closely in the field.
... cal strategy to continue to expand fossil fuel dependence. 16 Throughout the world, many governments and many individual political leaders have leveraged the power of aligning with fossil fuel corporate interests to take advantage of financial and political gains. This political influence of fossil energy companies can be seen in many countries; recent developments in the United States, however, demonstrate the blatant influence of large energy companies on elected officials. ...
... Much of the opposition to solar geoengineering field research is aligned with opposition to deployment. Given that investments in research can create momentum towards deployment, and the historical precedence of researchers becoming advocates for deploying the technologies they work on [35,36], there is concern that advancing research will increase the likelihood that solar geoengineering will ultimately be deployed, regardless of what the research reveals about the distribution of societal risks and benefits of deployment. ...
Mounting evidence that even aggressive reductions in net emissions of greenhouse gases will be insufficient to limit global climate risks is increasing calls for atmospheric experiments to better understand the risks and implications of also deploying solar geoengineering technologies to reflect sunlight and rapidly lower surface temperatures. But solar geoengineering research itself poses significant environmental and geopolitical risks. Given limited societal awareness and public dialogue about this climate response option, conducting such experiments without meaningful societal engagement could galvanize opposition to solar geoengineering research from civil society, including the most climate vulnerable communities who are among its intended beneficiaries. Here, we explore whether and how a solar geoengineering research enterprise might be developed in a way that promotes legitimacy as well as scientific credibility and policy relevance. We highlight the distinctive responsibilities of researchers and research funders to ensure that solar geoengineering research proposals are subject to legitimate societal review and scrutiny, recommend steps they can take to strive towards legitimacy and call on them to be explicitly open to multiple potential outcomes, including the societal rejection or considerable alteration of the solar geoengineering research enterprise.
This article is part of the theme issue ‘The Paris Agreement: understanding the physical and social challenges for a warming world of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels'.
