Perspectives on CCS
From the ENGO Network on CCS
Camilla Skriung, ZERO

The ENGO Network on CCS
• Created in 2011
• Members:
Clean Air Task Force, E3G, Environmental Defense
Fund, Green Alliance, Natural Resources Defense
Council, The Bellona Foundation, The Climate
Institute, The Pembina Institute, World Resources
Institute and Zero Emission Resource Organisation
• A coordinator based in Texas
• Informal network

Background
• ENGOs coming together around
the safe and effective
deployment of CCS as a timely
mitigation tool for combating
climate change.
• To have a common voice
• A tool for cooperation and
sharing knowledge

Goals
• Ensure that CCS is performed and
regulated safely, in a manner that
protects our climate, human health and
the environment.
• Pursue domestic and international
policies, regulations and initiatives that
enable CCS to deliver on its emissions
reduction potential.
• Disseminate scientifically sound and
objective information on CCS technology.

• ​Work toward common positions and responses
to international developments in the CCS arena.
• Work to phase out the construction of new
unabated, conventional coal-fired power stations
as soon as possible, with CCS playing a part of the
solution.
• In developed countries, no new, conventional
coal-fired generation should be constructed
without CCS.
• Work to incorporate CCS in other types of fossil-
fired power generation, industrial sectors, and in
combination with sustainable biomass.

The ENGO Network paper
• To broaden the discussion of
CCS as a complement to the key
strategies of energy efficiency
and renewable resources in
combating climate change
• Made to present at COP18
• Written by members of The
ENGO Network on CCS

• Describes the status of CCS in
our respective countries and
regions
• A call to action for increased
international, governmental
support.
• Gives recommendations for
policy framework globally and in
each country

Policy needs for CCS
• Limits on carbon emissions and an
associated price on carbon
• Overcome the initial high-cost
hurdle for projects
• Regulations mandating or
providing a pathway for CCS
deployment
• Regulations for ensuring
environmental protection and
managing the risks associated with
CCS

EU
recommendations/needs
• Show that CCS can clearly form part of a
low-carbon future. Especially the case
for the use of CCS on industrial sources
of CO2 emissions or on gas-fired power
plants.
• Such an approach would also appeal to
politicians who are concerned by the
impact of the economic crisis and the risk
of carbon leakage and job losses.
• A positive motivation for CCS is sorely
needed to counteract the (often
erroneously) negative perceptions of CCS
to date.

• Increase the carbon price to
demonstrate that it can be an
effective means of reducing
emissions and shaping longtime
investment decisions
• Strengthen the Emission Trading
Scheme (ETS)
• Solve the issue around the (even
on short term) continued use of
coal and CCS as part of that

• Finalize and fasten the
processes of the CO2 storage
directive, the 6 European
Economic Recovery Plan
projects, and the New Entrants
Reserve of the ETS (NER300)
funding.

Germany
recommendations/needs
• A better CCS law that allows for
testing and demos of the whole
CCS chain
• An educated debate: The
public/NGO/citizen groups need
scientifically accurate
information and proof (demos)
that CCS can be safe, effective
and environmentally friendly

• The info and messaging coming
from trusted actors that carry
objectivity and credibility
• More focus on CCS on industrial
applications
(concrete, cement, steel..)
• Investigate the pipeline
infrastructure possibilities: off
shore storage

Norway
recommendations/needs
• Continued and extended use of
the policy of obligatory CCS in
permits for building any new
gas-fired power
• Establishing an infrastructure for
transport and storage
• A new political and financial
framework for CCS:

• The offshore CO2 tax should be
increased and used for a fund
dedicated to climate change
technical solutions, like CCS
www.zeroco2.no
Camilla@zero.no