NGOs

Environmental NGOs have different positions on CCS. Most of the largest environmental NGOs have a positive view on CCS, or simply call it a necessary evil. A few NGOs however, like Greenpeace, are very negative to CCS. It can be confusing for the public when environmental NGOs hold different views on CCS. In order to make it easier for you to make up you own mind, the main arguments from a number of NGOs are presented below.

The complete story about Bellona's CCS position is found here. A brief overview is given below.

The Bellona Foundation is very positive to CCS because the organization doesn't believe it is possible to combat global warming without it. Like all environmental NGOs Bellona regards increased energy efficiency and renewable energy as the ultimate solutions to avoid the most dramatic consequences of climate change. However, Bellona is convinced that suffficient reductions of CO₂ emissions are impossible without all three mechanisms, that is, energy efficiency, renewable energy and CCS.

Greenpeace regards CCS is a false hope because CCS will not prevent more than a fraction of global warming pollution from reaching the atmosphere in the next few decades.

When industry argues that CCS will enable construction of coal power plants with nearly zero CO₂ emissions because carbon is buried underground, Greenpeace argues that it makes most sense to not build coal-fired power plants in the first place because carbon is already 'stored' safely underground as coal.

Greenpeace calls it is a perverse situation where policymakers who claim to recognize the urgency of cutting greenhouse gas emissions are considering bankrolling the development of an unproven technology, rather than funding proven pollution-free renewable energy sources and energy efficiency improvements.

Greenpeace also regards CCS as a bad idea claiming that it is expensive, the technology is unproven, storage of CO₂ underground is risky and it undermines other solutions to climate change.

According to Greenpeace, the solution to combat global warming is renewable energy and energy saving which are safe, clean, predictable and cost-effective.

Read more at the Greenpeace home page.

Like most NGOs, WWF says there is a need for a radical shift in the way the world sources its energy. According to Keith Allott, Head of Climate Change at WWF-UK, renewables and greater energy efficiency should form the bulk of that shift, but fossil fuels could also play a role, provided they use proven and strongly legislated CCS.

WWF regards CCS as a bridge to the renewable energy future, but they have a clear message to industry and politicians on how CCS should be introduced:

"If oil and power companies believe that CCS is key to the future of their fossil fuel business models then they should invest heavily in making sure CCS technology is workable, rather than leaving it to the taxpayer, and ultimately the environment, to foot the bill in the future," says Keith Allott.

WWF is calling for the introduction of an emissions standard which will set legal limits on the amount of CO₂ that new and replacement power stations can emit. Such an emission standard is in place in California, and WWF argues that it should be introduced in other parts of the world to ensure that CCS becomes more than a promise from the industry, but also contributes to large emission reductions.

Read more at the WWF home page.

Friends of the Earth (FOE) has taken a position similar to WWF on CCS. They say that energy efficiency and renewable energy are the main solutions for CO₂ free energy, but they recognize CCS as an additional strategy to reduce CO₂ emissions. However, FOE raises some concerns because they fear there could be an unhealthy competition between renewable energy and CCS. They are afraid that money may be channeled to CCS when it would be better spent on renewables.

Read more at the FOE home page.

E3G has taken a positiv view on CCS, and they argue for strong and early funding of CCS demonstration plants as critical for delivering climate security. One of their founding directors, Nick Mabey, says that "Climate risks are too high not to take CCS seriously".

E3G argues for the need for diversification of energy sources and immediate demonstration of new technologies to determine their viability. E3G advocates CCS as one of the new technologies that should be addressed in energy and climate policy.

Read more at the E3G home page.

Read more at the CAN home site.

The Bellona CCS position

• Greenpeace
• WWF
• Friends of the Earth
• E3G
• CAN home site