Opinions

The opinions on CCS vary a lot. Some environmental organizations say CCS is one of the most important tools to combat global warming, while others say that we should forget about CCS and focus on other solutions. What is your opinion on CCS? Read more about what environmental organisations, experts, politicians and companies think about CCS and form your own opinion.

A brief overview of public opinion on CCS is given below. Additional details on public opinion can be found here.

When the general public is asked about their opinion on CCS, the most common reply is that they have never heard about CCS. Many people tend to be sceptical as is normally the case when one is faced with unfamiliar concepts.

People generally become more interested and more positive toward CCS as soon as they are given objective information about the concept.

Global warming is a huge challenge for mankind and CCS could be an important solution. Therefore, it is important to provide the public with information about CCS, including all of the various opinions on the matter.

A brief overview on how environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) regard CCS is given below. Details on the opinions of some of the largest international NGOs are given here.

Environmental NGOs have different views on CCS. The Bellona Foundation is one among many NGOs that are very positive towards CCS; Bellona sees CCS as an important tool in combating global warming. Greenpeace is one of the organizations that take the opposite position; they are very skeptical towards CCS because they say that global warming can be combatted without CCS. Acording to Greenpeace we do not need CCS, because energy efficiency and renewable energy can give sufficient CO₂ emission reduction. In addition, Greenpeace argues that CCS is being used as an excuse to continue reliance on fossil fuels.

All environmental groups agree that CCS requires funding and that it poses a potential threat to the development of renewable energy. Yet the dividing factor between NGOs is that while some work hard to ensure that CCS funding comes in addition to increased funding of renewables, others take a more idealistic approach and argue that all funding to combat global warming should be put towards measures for enhanced energy efficiency, renewable energy and improved forestry management.

This disagreement raises the question of whether a combination of more renewable energy, enhanced energy efficiency and saving of the forests is sufficient to combat global warming. NGOs are divided on whether or not we can combat global warming without CCS.

NGOs are also concerned about the safety of CO₂ storage. While many experts say that CO₂ can be stored safely, some NGOs are more sceptical and fear CO₂ leakage.

An increasing number of NGOs are accepting CCS as a valuable tool to combat global warming. Many call it a 'necessary evil' as they do not believe that renewable energy production can increase rapidly enough to reduce global CO₂ emissions sufficiently. This position predicates a belief that mankind will continue to be dependent on fossil fuels for decades. Introducing CCS will mean that energy production from fossil fuels can be performed with the lowest amount of CO₂ emissions possible.

Most scientists and experts on energy issues agree that CCS is a necessary tool to combat global warming. This is due to their belief that CCS has a large potential to reduce global CO₂ emissions and that it can be deployed faster than renewable energy production. They believe that CCS will contribute to a much larger reduction in CO₂ emissions by 2050 than is possible through deployment of more renewable energy and energy efficiency.

However, experts point out a number of challenges related to CCS as well as various technical issues that need to be solved. The cost of CCS is high, research and demonstration activities are needed to reduce costs and politicians must establish funding mechanisms for demonstration activities. Although CO₂ storage is considered safe, experts also emphasize unresolved challenges related to geological characterization of potential storage sites, development of tools to predict the behaviour of CO₂ injected into the ground and establishment of standards for CO₂ injection and storage.

So what is the best way to find solutions to the global climate challenge? One option is to encourage thousands of experts to work together on research and analysis and then ask them to formulate recommendations. That is just what the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did. The IPCC represents the best experts on climate change worldwide and they regard CCS to be one of the most important solutions to reduce global CO₂ emissions.

The International Energy Agency (IEA), a widely cited organization on energy issues, shares this point of view. They also state that CCS is one of the main strategies for meeting global climate challenges.

Generally speaking, industry is positive towards CCS, however they have some concerns when it comes to political discussions about how to deploy CCS.

Industry regards CCS as a very good technological solution to reduce global CO₂ emissions. Many companies have already invested alot in the technology, because they want to take a leading role in what could be big business in the future. There are about 8000 power plants and industrial plants worldwide where CCS technology is applicable as a CO₂ emission reduction solution. This could represent a huge market for technological leaders.

Industrial stakeholders are of course very cost-oriented, which influences their point of view on how to deploy CCS. Scientists and industry agree that the next step for further development of CCS technology is to build full-scale CCS demonstration plants. When developing new technology, the first full-scale plants are always the most expensive. This is the case for CCS as well. Industry can take some of the burden of expenses related to construction of demonstration plants, but not all. They are asking for public money to realize the projects. Politicians indicate that there will be public funding for CCS, but exactly how the costs will be split between industry and public budgets will probably be an ongoing debate for several years.

A brief overview of how politicians regard CCS is given below. Additional details on politicians' opinions are given here.

Politicians throughout the world have taken a growing interest in finding ways to combat global warming and they are continuously more positive to CCS as a good strategy to reduce global CO₂ emissions. However, there are also politicians that are sceptical to CCS and who raise the same concerns as NGOs.

The best evidence that politicians support CCS is the agreement among G8 leaders to build 20 demonstration projects worldwide to enhance technological development and accelerate commercialization of CCS technology.

Read more about the different opinions on CCS

• The Bellona CCS position
• Opinions from NGOs
• Opinions from Industry
• Opinions from Politicians
• Safe CO2 storage

Read about NGOs' CCS position:

• Greenpeace
• WWF
• FOE
• E3G
• CAN

International organisations working with CCS:

• CSLF
• IEA GHG
• ZEP