Abstract
For CO2 capture and storage (CCS) to succeed as a mitigation strategy, political commitment is one of several prerequisites. This article offers an appraisal of political commitment to a CCS strategy among high-income countries in Europe and North America: Which governments are committed, and what particular interests and concerns do they seek to accommodate by supporting CCS? In order to answer these questions, new data are reported on government CCS research, development and demonstration (RD&D) budgets. RD&D budgets divided by GDP is used as an indicator of political commitment, and explanations are sought for cross-national differences. The analysis shows that fossil fuels reserves and extraction within a country has a very strong bearing on funding levels. Likely explanations include the potential for combining CCS with enhanced resource recovery. All large economies (population >50 million) have a funding program. The smaller states that provide funding (Norway, Canada, the Netherlands) have the highest funding levels relative to GDP. These findings suggest that high-income petroleum producing countries are likely to be leaders in promoting CCS and a favorable regulatory environment. The fact that all large, high-income countries in the two regions now display some interest in CCS further improves its political outlook.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Where the project period started or ended during 2005, a share of average annual funding corresponding to the number of months that the project was active during 2005 was used.
In an additional regression not reported here, EC RD&D budgets were distributed on all member states according to GDP (and without the EU as a separate unit of observation). Running models 2a–c, Table 3, with this setup yielded somewhat different coefficients, but did not change the overall conclusions. I consider this approach inferior because it relies on an arbitrarily chosen distribution key that does not reflect the underlying political process. Neither of the two other obvious alternatives—treating the EU countries as a bloc only, or excluding EC funding from the analysis—would reflect the actual situation where both individual member states and the EC make important funding decisions.
References
Aguilar S, Conrad A et al (2005). Summary of the 11th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, 28 Nov–10 Dec 2005. Earth Negotiation Bulletin. 12
Alberta Energy (2004) Information letter 2003–2017. Subject: CO2 Projects Royalty Credits Program
Aldy JE, Barret S (2003) Thirteen plus one: a comparison of global climate policy architectures. Climate Policy 2(4):373–397
Bang G, Tjernshaugen A, Andresen S (2005) Future U.S. Climate Policy: international re-engagement? Int Stud Perspect 6(2):285–303
BMBF (2005) Online project catalog, Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany, www.foerderkatalog.de, accessed 23.01.2005
BMWA (2003) Summary of COORETEC. Report 527, December 2003, Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour (BMWA)
BMWA (2005) Carbon Capture and Storage Activities in Germany. Document prepared for CSLF meeting, Berlin, September 2005. (BMWA) FMoEaL
Bode S, Jung M (2004) On the integration of carbon capture and storage into the international climate regime. Hamburg Institute of International Economics, Hamburg
BP (2005) BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2005
Chakma A (1992) CO2 separation and recycling—a route to zero net production of CO2 in the alberta energy industry. Energy Convers Manage 33(5–8):795–802
Cohen LR, Noll RG et al (1991) The technology pork barrel. The Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC
Cohen WM, Nelson RR, Walsh JP (2002) Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Manage Sci 48(1):1–23
Curry T, Reiner DM et al (2004) How aware is the public of carbon capture and storage? Proceedings of the international conference on greenhouse gas control technologies (7th), 5–9 September 2004, Vancouver, Canada. IEA Greenhouse Gas Programme, Cheltenham
Curry T, Reiner DM et al (2005) A survey of public attitudes towards energy and environment in great. Laboratory for energy and environment, Britain, MIT
David PA, Hall BH, Toole AA (2000) Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence. Res Policy 29(4–5):497–529
Dixon T, Zakkour P (2006) UK work on market mechanisms to encourage CCS, including the EU ETS. GHGT8. Trondheim
Dooley JJ, Runci PJ (1999) Adopting a Long View to Energy R&D and Global Climate Change, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
European Commission (2004) European CO2 Capture and Storage projects. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
Freund P, Kaya Y, Lior N (2004) Special edition. 6th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Kyoto, Japan, 1–4 October 2002. Energy 29(9–10):1237–1657
GHGT7 (2004) Papers and posters available online. 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Vancouver Convention Center, Canada
Gielen D, Podkanski J (2004) Prospects for CO2 capture and storage. OECD/IEA, Paris
Grubb M (1996) Technologies, energy systems and the timing of emissions abatement: an overview of the economic issues. Climate Change: Integrating Science, Economics and Policy. Nakicenovic N, Nordhaus WD, Richels Ret al. Laxenburg, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
Hart DM (2002) Private technological capabilities as products of national innovation systems: four ways of looking at the state. Sci Public Policy 29(3):181–188
Huijts N (2003). Public Perception of Carbon Dioxide Storage. Eindhoven University of Technology Master’s Thesis, available at www.climatepolicy.info/technologies/
IEA (1991–2005) Greenhouse Issues newsletter, issue no 1–80
IEA GHG (2005) CO2 Capture and Storage R&D Project Database, IEA Greenhouse Gas Programme, www.co2captureandstorage.info, accessed January 2005
Ihlen Ø (2004) Rhetoric and resources in public relations strategies. A rhetorical and sociological analysis of two conflicts over energy and the environment. Faculty of Arts, University of Oslo, Oslo
IPCC (2005) Special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva
Kasa S (2005) Review essay: the domestic politics bias in analyses of CO2 taxation in the nordic countries. Scand Polit Stud 28(1):91–102
Legg JF (1992) Overview of carbon-dioxide removal and disposal in Canada. Energy Convers Manage 33(5–8):787–794
Martin S, Scott JT (2000) The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation. Res Policy 29(4–5):437–447
Morris B et al (2006) UK policy for the development and implementation of carbon dioxide capture and storage. GHGT8. Trondheim, Norway
Natural Resources Canada (2004) A new incentive for industry to capture and store carbon dioxide. Government of Canada news release March 1, 2004
Nilsen YS (2001) En felles plattform? Norsk oljeindustri og klimadebatten i Norge fram til 1998. Senter for teknologi innovasjon og kultur Universitetet i Oslo: Unipub, Oslo
Novem (2005) Clean Fuels Internet Site, Netherlands Agency for Energy and the Environment, www.cleanfuels.novem.nl, accessed January 2005
Philibert U (2005) The role of technological development and policies in a post-Kyoto climate regime. Clim Policy 5(3):291–308
Purdy R, Macrory R (2004) Geological carbon sequestration: critical legal issues, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Quiviger G, Herzog HJ (2001). A Case Study from Norway on Gas-Fired Power Plants,” Carbon Sequestration, and Politics, presented at the First National Conference on Carbon Sequestration, Washington, DC, May 14–17
Ragin C (1987) The comparative method. Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
Ragin C (2000) Fuzzy-set social science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Reiner DM, Herzog HJ (2004) Developing a set of regulatory analogs for carbon sequestration. Energy 29(9–10):1561–1570
Sagar AD, Holdren JP (2002) Assessing the global energy innovation system: some key issues. Energy Policy 30(6):465
Shackley S, McLachlan C, Gough C (2005) The public perception of carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK: results from focus groups and a survey. Clim Policy 4(4):377–398
Shalev M (2006). Limits and Alternatives to Multiple Regression in Comparative Research. Forthcoming in Comparative Social Research 25
Solli J (2004) Kalkylenes retorikk. Økonomiske argumenter i utvikling av nye energiteknologier. Inst. for tverrfaglige kulturstudier, NTNU, Trondheim
Sprinz D, Vaahtoranta T (1994) The interest-based explanation of international environmental-policy. Int Organ 48(1):77–105
Stortinget (2004) B.innst.S.nr.9 (2004–2005). Energi- og miljøkomiteen. [Norwegian Parliament, Standing Committee on Energy and Environment, Recommendation on the 2005 budget]
Sæverud IA, Moe A (2005) Carbon Storage and Climate Change—The Case of Norway. Governing Climate. The Struggle for a Global Framework Beyond Kyoto. Sugiyama T. Winnipeg, Manitoba, IISD, pp 76–86
Torvanger A, Rypdal K, Kallbekken S (2005) Geological CO2 Storage as a Climate Change Mitigation Option. Mitigation Adaptation Strategies Global Change 10(4):693–715
U.S. Congress (2004) Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005. H. R. 4818
U.S. White House (2002) Addendum to the global climate change policy book. Washington, DC, 14 February. Available at http://www.whitehouse.govwww.whitehouse.gov
U.S. DOE (2004) Clean Coal Technology & The President’s Clean Coal Power Initiative. Retrieved 3 December, 2004, from www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/
UK DTI (2005) A Strategy for Developing Carbon Abatement Technologies for Fossil Fuel Use, Department of Trade and Industry
Underdal A, Hanf K (2000) International Environmental Agreements and Domestic Politics. The case of acid rain. Aldershot, Ashgate
UNFCCC (2005) Key GHG Data. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Data for 1990–2003 submitted to the UNFCCC, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
ZEFFPP (2006) Strategic Research Agenda. European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Guri Bang, Martin Cames, Jon Hovi, Lars Mjøset, Sjur Kasa, Lynn P. Nygaard and Henrik Urdal and three anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on earlier drafts of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix I—Details on RD&D budgets
Appendix I—Details on RD&D budgets
United States: In the FY 2005 Department of Energy (DOE) budget, 45 million is allocated to DOE’s Carbon Sequestration program and 18 million to the FutureGen project which aims to build a full-scale pilot plant for producing electricity and hydrogen from coal with CO2 capture (pers. comm. Robert Kane, Department of Energy, 17.12.2004; U.S. Congress 2004: 273).
Norway: In the 2005 fiscal budget, Parliament allocated NOK 50 million to the Research Council of Norway for its long-standing RD&D program on CCS technology for gas-fired power plants. The government’s new innovation company Gassnova was authorized to spend NOK 102.4 million for CCS demonstration project grants and administration (Stortinget 2004; pers. comm., Trygve Riis, Research Council of Norway, 10.12.2004). In the event, project approval was postponed to 2006, awaiting a ruling by ESA, the authority overseeing Norway’s compliance with EU competition rules under the European Economic Area (EEA) agreement.
European Commission: EUR 18 million is an estimate of current annual spending level for CCS projects under the Sixth Framework Program, provided by an EC official (pers. comm., Pierre Dechamps, DG RTD/J/2, 16.12.2004; see also European Commission 2004).
Canada: The government of Canada provides approximately CAD 9.5 million in annual funding for 40 ongoing CCS projects (pers. comm., Dubravka Bulut, Natural Resources Canada, 5.1.2005). In addition, two schemes give incentives for commercial actors to implement pilot or demonstration projects. In 2004, the government of Canada launched a 2-year, CAD 15-million incentive program (Natural Resources Canada 2004). Of this, 7.5 million is included in the 2005 total. Alberta’s provincial government provides 15 million over five years in “royalty relief” for oil companies using CO2 for EOR (Alberta Energy 2004). Three million is included in the estimate for 2005. This is not an actual expense paid by the government, but a tax credit.
Germany: About EUR 1.1 million annually for storage projects under the Geotechnologien program, funded by the Federal Ministry for Education and Research (pers. comm., Dr. Ludwig Stroink, 23.12.2005). EUR 2.4 million in 2005 for projects directed specifically at CO2 capture under the cleaner fossil power RD&D program COORETEC, funded by the Federal Ministry for Economics and Labor (BMWA 2003, 2005; BMBF 2005; pers.comm., Jochen Seier, PT Juelich, 18.1.2005). About EUR 0.2 annually for a broad assessment project at the Wuppertal Institute from the Federal Ministry of Environment (BMBF 2005).
The Netherlands: Author’s estimate of total budgets for 2005, based on information provided by officials of the relevant projects and agencies (pers. comm Peter Stollwerk, SenterNovem, 17.1.2005; Henk Pagnier, TNO-NITG, 18.2.2005; Novem 2005). For the 5-year CATO program, partially funded by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, approximately EUR 2.5 million government funding was expected for 2005. (pers. comm., Erik Lysen, Utrecht University, 15.2.2005).
Italy: EUR 2 million was available in 2005 for the CO.HY.GEN project. EUR 0.2 million for the ZECOMIX project starting in late 2005 is the author’ estimate based on total funding budget and project start and end dates (pers. comm., Carlo Amorino, 4.10.2005).
France: About EUR 1.9 million government funding was apparently available in 2005 for the PICOREF project (pers. comm., Etienne Brosse, 3.10.2005).
UK: For the years 2001–2005, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) provided or committed about 500,000 GPB to CCS projects, suggesting an annual funding level of about 100,000 (pers. comm., Brian Morris, DTI, 31.01.2005; Nicholas Aluko, DTI, 17.02.2006).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tjernshaugen, A. Political commitment to CO2 capture and storage: evidence from government RD&D budgets. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 13, 1–21 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-006-9077-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-006-9077-y