How Co2 Capture and Storage Can Mitigate Carbon Leakage

Abstract

SummaryMost CO 2 abatement policies reduce the demand for fossil fuels and therefore their price in international markets. If these policies are not global, this price decrease raises emissions in countries without CO 2 abatement policies, generating "carbon leakage". On the other hand, if the countries which abate CO 2 emissions are net fossil fuel importers, they benefit from this price decrease, which reduces the abatement cost. In contrast, CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) does not reduce fossil fuel demand, therefore it generates neither this type of leakage nor this negative feedback on abatement costs. We quantify these effects with the global hybrid general equilibrium model Imaclim-R and show that they are quantitatively important. Indeed, for a given unilateral abatement in OECD countries, leakage is more than halved in a scenario with CCS included among the abatement options, compared to a scenario prohibiting CCS. We show that the main reason for this difference in leakage is the above-mentioned international fossil fuel price feedback. This article does not intend to assess the desirability of CCS, which has many other pros and cons. It just identifies a consequence of CCS that should be taken into account, together with many others, when deciding to what extent CCS should be developed. Most CO 2 abatement policies reduce the demand for fossil fuels and therefore their price in international markets. If these policies are not global, this price decrease raises emissions in countries without CO 2 abatement policies, generating "carbon leakage". On the other hand, if the countries which abate CO 2 emissions are net fossil fuel importers, they benefit from this price decrease, which reduces the abatement cost. In contrast, CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) does not reduce fossil fuel demand, therefore it generates neither this type of leakage nor this negative feedback on abatement costs. We quantify these effects with the global hybrid general equilibrium model Imaclim-R and show that they are quantitatively important. Indeed, for a given unilateral abatement in OECD countries, leakage is more than halved in a scenario with CCS included among the abatement options, compared to a scenario prohibiting CCS. We show that the main reason for this difference in leakage is the above-mentioned international fossil fuel price feedback. This article does not intend to assess the desirability of CCS, which has many other pros and cons. It just identifies a consequence of CCS that should be taken into account, together with many others, when deciding to what extent CCS should be developed. Keywords

Climate policy and the ‘carbon haven’ effect

“…First, CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) does not reduce fuel consumption. Quirion et al 13 show that for this reason, CCS brings down carbon leakage compared to a climate policy providing the same abatement without CCS. Second, the world oil market is dominated by OPEC, and alternative assumptions about OPEC's behavior lead to opposite results regarding leakage through the oil market, which can even become negative 14 .…”

Restoring Pre-Industrial CO2 Levels While Achieving Sustainable Development Goals

“…We realize that proposing that all new electricity power plants be Allam Cycle (or similar sequestering technologies), perhaps initially burning fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) may seem counter-intuitive. However, Quirion et al [165] found that using CCS with fossil fuels produced faster reduction in emissions with a lower carbon price.…”

The Real Economics of Climate Engineering

“…These insights have not yet been explicitly explored with reference to CDR, but they can be extrapolated from research on carbon capture and storage (CCS). Quirion et al [119] show that in a scenario restricting emission control to OECD countries, international carbon leakage can be more than halved if CCS is combined with emission control.…”