The potential for CO 2 emission reductions through carbon capture and storage (CCS) is depending on investments that can bring the technology from the current R&D through to commercial applications. The intermediate step in this development is demonstration plants that can prove the technical, economic, social, and ecological feasibility of CCS technologies. Based on a CCS stakeholder questionnaire survey and a literature review, we critically analyse discrepancies regarding perceptions of deployment obstacles and experiences from early demonstration plants. The analysis identifies discrepancies between CCS policies versus important deployment considerations and CCS stakeholder policy demands. The discrepancy gap is emphasised by lessons from restructured, postponed, and cancelled CCS projects. To bridge this cognitive gap towards proving CCS through demonstration activities, the article highlights policy implications of establishing a broad understanding of deployment obstacles. Attention to these obstacles is important for policymakers and industry in channelling efforts to demonstrating CCS, hence validating the current focus on CCS as a key abatement potential. Under present conditions, the findings question the robustness of current CCS abatement potential estimates and deployment goals as established by policymakers and in scenarios.
Scenarios for global developments typically point to a sharp increase in demand for energy as well as for water and land. These developments have a starting point where global ecosystems are already being exploited unsustainably. This has implications for energy systems, which can be designed as more or less water and land‐use intensive. However, evaluating the sustainability of energy systems commonly do not take water and land‐use systems into account. This presents a problem as these three systems—energy, water, land—are intrinsically linked, which provides both barriers and opportunities for these systems' individual as well as collective sustainability. More comprehensive evaluations of energy systems that acknowledge the system interlinkages are therefore needed. This has become known as applying a
nexus approach
. The idea behind the nexus approach is to increase system synergies and resilience through jointly analyzing ecosystem capacities, drivers for resource use, development objectives, capacities to manage linked systems, and the need for new knowledge. This provides a comprehensive perspective on the restrictions and freedom we have in governing, designing, and using the social, technical, and ecological systems. The article thus presents a nexus approach and provides an understanding of challenges for the sustainability of energy systems from a broad system perspective.
Pledge-and-review is an essential pillar for climate change mitigation up until 2020 under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In this paper, we build on a survey handed out to participants at the Seventeenth Conference of Parties in 2011 to examine to what extent climate negotiators and stakeholders agree with existing critiques towards pledge-and-review. Among the critique examined, we find that the one most agreed with is that the pledges fall short of meeting the 2 degree target, while the one least agreed with is that pledges are voluntary. We also find that respondents from Annex 1 parties are more critical than respondents from Non-Annex 1 parties. Negotiators display strikingly similar responses regardless of where they are from, while there is a remarkable difference between Annex 1 and Non-Annex 1 environmental non-governmental organizations. We build on these results to discuss the legitimacy of pledge-and-review.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.