The underground storage of CO2 was already being discussed in Germany in the 2000s, but the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) met with great social and political resistance.
In agreement with the Carbon-Management-Strategie adopted last August, the German government now wants to authorise the underground storage of carbon dioxide in various areas in order to achieve climate neutrality by 2045.
What is behind this change of course? Scientists from the orschungsinstituts für Nachhaltigkeit – Helmholtz-Zentrum Potsdam (RIFS) and the Universität Wien have shed light on the background in a study.
CCS: socio-political resistance in the 2000s
The main players in CCS projects in the 2000s were coal companies such as RWE and Vattenfall. There were also supporters in the political spectrum.
However, the first test blasts carried out by RWE in 2009 as part of the site assessment on the coast of Schleswig-Holstein resulted in massive protests from the local population, especially as they were said to have had no prior knowledge of them. The CDU-led state government, which had previously supported the CCS issue, subsequently distanced itself from it again.
First author of the study Tobias Haas (RIFS) explains that in the 2000s, in addition to the high costs of a CCS infrastructure, the risks of underground storage were the main topic of lively debate in politics and society. According to Haas, the greatest danger was seen in the ‘leakage of CO2 from storage sites’ and, among other things, in the possible consequences for health.
Exacerbation of climate change leads to a rethink
According to Haas, the intensification of the climate crisis has led to an increased politicisation of the issue in recent years, which has resulted in the setting of ambitious global climate targets. The most pressing issue is how to deal with avoidable emissions (such as agricultural methane or CO2 from cement production). For this reason, the discourse on carbon capture and storage has been experiencing a ‘renaissance’ for several years.
The authors of the study cite four main reasons which, in their view, have led to a new dynamic in the CCS debate compared to the 2000s: two reasons are the annual increase in greenhouse gas emissions and the increasing politicisation (e.g. through climate science, initiatives such as Last Generation, Fridays for Future or Extinction Rebellion), which, thirdly, have led to a rethink in international climate policy. The fourth reason cited by the authors is the expansion of the decarbonisation areas with the 2019 Climate Protection Act - from the electricity supply (2000s) to other sectors such as the cement, steel and chemical industries and the mobility sector.
Maintain decarbonisation course, rethink prosperity models
Author Tobias Haas warns against setting the wrong course when dealing with CCS and emissions that are difficult to avoid, which he describes as a key conflict.
„Instead of focussing unilaterally on new technologies, we should be discussing sufficiency, i.e. a more frugal model of prosperity. If we reduce the need for climate-damaging production, we can lower our emissions and the amount of residual emissions that need to be offset would fall accordingly.“
Under no circumstances, however, should decarbonisation be delayed by the future use of CCS.
