Geoengineering in the European Union. EU-financed projects and their implications for the European Green Deal.

About the author Anja Chalmin has been active in supporting environmentally friendly, climate-friendly and low-residue agriculture in various positions for more than 20 years. Since 2011, she has also been focusing on climate geoengineering technology, projects, research and experimentation. Anja holds a Diploma in Agricultural Engineering (Horticulture, sub-/tropical Horticulture) from the University of Applied Sciences Osnabrück and an MSc Agroforestry from Bangor University.

Contents Introduction 5

1 The European Green Deal mentions CCS and CCU 7 as possible measures to implement the declared climate targets

  1. The European Union has not met its own targets 8
    for testing CCS – yet CCS is regarded
    as a “climate and resource frontrunner”
    under the European Green Deal
  2. The European Hydrogen Strategy relies on blue 11
    hydrogen in the short and medium term – and thus
    on an immature technology with high GHG emissions
  3. EU funding increasingly plays a role in financing 13
    geoengineering projects
  4. The role of geoengineering in nationally elaborated 16
    climate plans gaps widely
  5. The number of geoengineering actors in the EU 18
    is increasing
  6. Geoengineering is not compatible with the goals 19
    of the European Green Deal – and may even make it
    more difficult to achieve them
    List of sources 21
    Annexes 25
    Annex 1 (chapter 4, figure 2): Number and contents 25
    of EU-funded geoengineering projects
    Annex 2 (chapter 4, figure 3): EU funding for GE projects 26
    in FP’s 5 to 8
    Annex 3 (chapter 5): The role of geoengineering in national 27
    strategic plans
    Annex 4 (chapter 6): European lobby groups working 33
    on the issue of geoengineering
    Geoengineering in the European Union 4/39
    Glossary
    BASRECCS Baltic Sea Region network for CCS
    BECCS Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
    CCS Carbon Capture and Storage
    CCU Carbon Capture and Utilisation
    CCUS Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage
    CO2
    Carbon dioxide
    DAC Direct Air Capture
    DKK Danish krone
    EEA European Environmental Agency
    EEPR European Energy Programme for Recovery
    EGD European Green Deal
    EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
    ETS Emission Trading System
    EU European Union
    FP Framework Programs
    GE Geoengineering
    GHG Greenhouse Gas(es)
    HRK Croatian kuna
    NDCs Nationally Determined Contributions
    NECPs National Energy and Climate Plans
    NER300 New Entrants’ Reserve programme, funded from the sale
    of 300 million ETS allowances
    NRRPs National Recovery and Resilience Plans
    SRM Solar Radiation Management
    Geoengineering in the European Union 5/39
    Introduction
    The notion of geoengineering includes a wide array of technologies that seek to intervene
    in and alter earth systems on a large scale – a “technofix” to climate change. Most geoengineering tech falls into two categories. The most contentious is solar radiation management (SRM), which aims to reflect more sunlight back into space to cool the planet by
    creating brighter and more reflective clouds or by injecting sun-dimming aerosols into the
    stratosphere to mimic a huge volcanic eruption. The other major category of geoengineering – large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from exhaust fumes or the atmosphere
    – is more prominent in the debate. It includes ideas like carbon capture from exhaust and
    underground storage (CCS) as well as carbon use (CCU), but also CDR in marine environments, such as artificial upwelling. CCS and CCU are an integral component of many
    geoengineering schemes and many climate models currently envision them on large-scale.
    This paper takes a comprehensive approach and considers all geoengineering approaches
    that have been studied and are policy relevant in the EU context.
    There are many reasons to be wary of these technologies. They do not address the underlying causes of climate change themselves, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, thereby
    delaying the implementation of a transition away from fossil fuels. As they are very pricy,
    they redirect funding and investments away from real climate solutions. Some geoengineering proposals require vast amounts of energy, nullifying any potential benefit. There are
    also geopolitical and social concerns: technologies could have transboundary impacts or be
    weaponized, e.g., SRM, or use up vast amounts of land, e.g., BECCS. Indigenous peoples
    have a particular vulnerability, for example due to potential displacements or changes in
    agricultural opportunities. Lastly, they are largely unproven und their actual impact on the
    climate system is difficult – for some approaches: impossible – to test without potentially
    irreversible consequences.
    Geoengineering approaches figure prominently in net zero plans and pledges, of both governments and corporations, in particular. This contributes to an environment where urgent
    choices about decarbonization of industry, transport, and power production are postponed.
    To be relevant to ’net zero‘, the geoengineering technologies must be deployed at very large
    scale. Failure of these technologies would lock in several degrees of warming, with a catastrophic impact.
    In the European context, the debate on “net zero” has only started. While – after tough
    negotiations – the EU institutions agreed on an Climate Law to enshrine the overarching
    objective of the European Green Deal, climate neutrality by 20501
    , and even net negative
    emissions thereafter into law, the question how much emission reductions could be achieved
    via technologies and not natural sinks remains open.2
    Many of the relevant actors in this
    field (the EU institutions Commission, neighboring states with regulatory links to the EU,
    companies, NGOs) have not yet developed a substantial and stable position on the issue.
    1 It is important to recall that the objective to become climate neutral only in 2050 and to reduce
    emissions by net. 55 % by 2030 is per se against the principle of common bur differentiated
    responsibilities and therefore not compatible with the Paris Agreement target of limiting global
    average temperature rise to 1.5°C.
    2 For the 2030 target priority is given to natural sinks, in large parts due to purely physical factors
    as technological solutions cannot contribute significantly in the short term.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 6/39
    The Climate Law itself uses cautious language and sees responsibility with Member States
    to decide whether they want to rely on such technologies. CCS and CCU are especially
    relevant in the debate around so-called “low-carbon gases” because they play a role in
    important policy files, such as the Hydrogen Strategy and the Taxonomy for Sustainable
    Finance. In 2022, the European Commission will make a legislative proposal on carbon
    removal certification.
    Against this background, the policy brief on hand provides an overview and critical evidence-based analysis of both the role of the EU in financing geo-engineering projects and
    the role of geo-engineering in relevant EU policies under the umbrella of the European
    Green Deal. It ought to feed into the debate of how the EU can reach the long-term objective of carbon neutrality by 2050. It seeks to answer the following questions: Where does
    the EU stand in the debate on geo-engineering? Are there striking differences among the
    member states? Which role do the above technologies play in the European Green Deal and
    the overarching goal to become climate neutral by 2050 and achieve net negative emissions
    thereafter? In which policy files is the bet on CDR especially relevant? Which projects on
    GE has the EU funded? And which actors have had an influence in that debate? As such, it
    aims to inform decision-makers, civil society actors and journalists about players and their
    positions in the area, financial expenses and opportunity costs of such projects, and the
    overall relevance of geo-engineering projects in climate policy making.
    The report is structured around the following themes: The first three chapters examine the
    role of geoengineering (GE) in relevant EU policies, focusing primarily on GE technologies
    mentioned under the umbrella of the European Green Deal in the context of the transition
    to climate neutrality. The interactive geoengineering map, generated by the Heinrich Böll
    Foundation and ETC Group, allows a detailed insight into GE activities in the European
    context. Based on the available information in the map, the fourth chapter analyses the
    role of the European Union (EU) in financing GE projects. The fifth chapter provides an
    overview of the EU member states’ approach to GE by summarising the role of GE technologies in the national strategic plans as well as the member states’ experiences with
    GE technologies to date. The sixth chapter provides insights into the geoengineering lobby
    and the extent to which the EU has helped shape the existing lobby structures. The final
    chapter questions whether geoengineering is a suitable instrument for implementing the
    goals of the European Green Deal.
    Climate policy context
    Climate has become a top policy priority for the institutions of the European Union. The
    European Parliament declared a climate emergency in November 2019 and one month
    later, the European Commission under President von der Leyen communicated on its
    flagship project: the European Green Deal. Its main objectives are economic growth
    decoupled from resource use, a zero-pollution environment, halting biodiversity loss and
    – above all – no net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050. The EU’s first Climate Law,
    passed in June 2021, enshrined the goal of a climate-neutrality for the EU as whole
    by 2050 into law. After 2050, the EU aims for negative emissions – but how the EU
    will remove more greenhouse gases from the atmosphere than it emits is still unclear.
    The Climate Law also raised the EU emissions reduction target from 40% to at least
    55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. The 2030 target is a net target, as natural
    Geoengineering in the European Union 7/39
    CO2
    sinks, such as forests, peatlands or soils, are allowed to contribute to meeting the
    climate target. However, natural CO2
    sinks are capped at 225 million tonnes of CO2
    .
    In addition to natural sinks, policy makers also consider technical solutions to achieve
    future targets, for example carbon capture and storage. The European Commission will
    propose an action plan to promote carbon removals from forests, agricultural practices
    or engineered mechanisms and develop a regulatory framework for the certification of
    such carbon removals by late 2022.
  7. The European Green Deal mentions
    CCS and CCU as possible measures to
    implement the declared climate targets
    Among the goals of the European Green Deal is that the EU should be climate neutral
    by 2050. Proposed for implementation are also measures that do not combat the
    causes of climate change but seek to reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases
    in the atmosphere.
    In the European Green Deal, published in late 2019, the European Commission points to
    climate and environmental problems – such as the rise in atmospheric temperature, the
    loss of species and the pollution of oceans and forests – and sets the goals to become climate neutral by 2050. Besides, the European Green Deal “aims to protect, conserve and
    enhance the EU’s natural capital, and protect the health and well-being of citizens from
    environment-related risks and impacts”. In order to achieve the climate-related goals, various instruments are to be used, including “carbon pricing”, “removing subsidies for fossil
    fuels”, and “the phasing out of fossil fuels, in particular those that are most polluting”. In
    section 2.1.2 on “supplying clean, affordable and secure energy”, as one of a number of
    measures, the European Green Deal recommends the introduction and promotion of carbon
    capture, storage and utilization. The EC’s staff working document “Impact Assessment –
    Stepping up Europe’s 2030 climate ambition” defines carbon capture and storage (CCS)
    as “a set of technologies aimed at capturing, transporting, and storing CO2
    emitted from
    power plants and industrial facilities” and elaborates that “the goal of CCS is to prevent CO2
    from reaching the atmosphere, by storing it in suitable underground geological
    formations”. Carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) is defined as a “process of capturing
    carbon dioxide (CO2
    ) to be recycled for further usage”. The European Green Deal section 2.1.3 on “mobilising industry for a clean and circular economy” lists CCS and CCU
    among the “climate and resource frontrunners” that are expected “to develop the first
    commercial applications of breakthrough technologies in key industrial sectors by 2030”,
    such as carbon-free steel making.
    CCS as a mean to achieve climate targets has already been addressed in previous communications of the European Commission. The 2018 communication “A Clean Planet for
    all” identified CCS as one of four main pathways to a sustainable energy system in 2050
    Geoengineering in the European Union 8/39
    and describes CCS as a mean to reduce emissions. Back in 2013, the communication on
    the Future of Carbon Capture and Storage in Europe outlined that “fossil fuels are likely
    to continue to be used in Europe’s power generation as well as in industrial processes for
    decades to come” as well as a scenario for the deployment of CCS – “with 7% to 32% of
    power generation using CCS by 2050 […], if commercialized”.
    CCS and CCU are both so-called geoengineering technologies that are an integral component
    of many geoengineering schemes. The scale at which they are currently envisioned in many of
    the climate models would make them geoengineering as such. The term geoengineering (GE)
    refers to deliberate, usually large-scale, interventions in the Earth’ climate system with
    the aim of reducing or masking the effects of climate change. Rather than addressing
    the underlying causes auf climate change, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, the
    proposed GE technologies primarily attempt to reduce the concentration of greenhouse
    gases in the atmosphere, or to reflect more sunlight back to space.
  8. The European Union has not met its
    own targets for testing CCS – yet
    CCS is regarded as a “climate and
    resource frontrunner” under the
    European Green Deal
    The European Council committed to testing the feasibility and economic viability of
    CCS. Up to twelve large-scale demonstration projects were to be conducted under
    two different funding programmes. In the end, only seven of these projects were
    planned, but none was implemented. Nevertheless, the European Union and the
    European Green Deal continue to back CCS – even though the self-imposed targets
    for testing CCS have not been achieved.
    In 2007, the European Council committed to support up to twelve large-scale demonstration
    CCS projects by 2015. For implementation, support for CCS was made possible through
    two financing instruments – the European Energy Programme for Recovery (EEPR) and
    the European NER300 funding programme.
    In 2013, six years later, a communication on the Future of Carbon Capture and Storage in
    Europe from the European Commission stated that
    — “the need for large scale demonstration and deployment of CCS, in view of its commercialisation, has not receded and has only become more urgent”;
    Geoengineering in the European Union 9/39
    — “investment in CCS demonstration is required to test whether the subsequent deployment and construction of CO2 infrastructure is feasible. The first step on this path is
    therefore to ensure a successful commercial-scale demonstration of CCS in Europe
    that would confirm CCS’s technical and economic viability as a cost-effective measure
    to mitigate GHG in the power and industrial sector.”
    A 2018 European Special Report, produced by the European Court of Auditors, explains
    that the two programs introduced to support the twelve large-scale demonstration CCS projects have not succeeded in deploying the projects. The following map provides an overview
    of the planned projects and the respective reasons for failure:
    Figure 1: The European Council committed to support up to 12 large-scale demonstration
    projects to test CCS. In the end, seven projects were planned, but none of the projects
    were implemented.
    Compostilla project:
    EEPR funded,
    scale-up cancelled
    for financial reasons
    ROAD project:
    EEPR funded,
    cancelled for
    financial reasons
    White Rose
    project: NER300
    funded, cancelled
    due to high costs
    Vattenfall Jänschwalde
    project: EEPR funded,
    abandoned due to
    public opposition
    Belchatow project: EEPR
    funded, cancelled due to lack of
    funding, technical risks, public
    opposition, and legal issues
    Porto Tolle project: EEPR funded,
    abandoned for financial reasons and
    annulment of the environmental permit
    Don Valley project:
    EEPR funded,
    abandoned for
    financial reasons
    Geoengineering in the European Union 10/39
    The EEPR programme was launched in 2009 and aimed to support nine offshore wind
    projects with €565 million as well as six CCS projects with €1 billion. Regarding the
    CCS projects, the EEPR had the target of making CCS technology commercially viable by
    the end of the decade. Although a total of €424 million was spent on the CCS projects, with
    an additional €150 million in national funding in the case of the ROAD project, this target was missed. In spite of this high cost to the taxpayer, none of the EEPR CCS projects
    reached commercial status, but all were abandoned.
    The NER300 funding programme aimed “to successfully demonstrate environmentally safe
    carbon capture and storage (CCS)” and to demonstrate “a wide range of CCS technologies”. During the first call, in 2012, none of the CCS projects were considered for funding,
    because they “were not confirmed by the Member States concerned”. During the second call,
    in 2014, only one CCS proposal was submitted, but cancelled in 2015. The unspent funds
    will be reinvested in the NER300 successor programme, the Innovation Fund. The funding
    instrument aims to invest up to €10 billion to advance “breakthrough technologies for
    renewable energy, energy-intensive industries, energy storage, and carbon capture, use and
    storage”. The Innovation Fund launched its first call for large-scale projects in July 2020,
    with the second call expected in October 2021. The proportion of large-scale projects related to geoengineering cannot yet be viewed – 66 applications were submitted in June 2021
    and grants will be awarded at the end of 2021.
    Although the targets to test the feasibility and economic viability of CCS have not been met,
    the EU continues to rely on CCS, “because a significant amount of power generation and
    industry will continue to rely on fossil fuels also in the future”. A Commission report, issued
    in 2020, summarized: “although the financial support of EEPR was not sufficient to prompt
    companies to realise commercial-scale CCS demonstration projects, the Commission still
    considers CCS important for decarbonisation”. It remains inexplicable how a technology
    that has yet to be tested and assessed for feasibility and viability can turn into a “climate and
    resource frontrunners” and a “breakthrough technology” in the European Green Deal.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 11/39
  9. The European Hydrogen Strategy relies
    on blue hydrogen in the short and
    medium term – and thus on an immature
    technology with high GHG emissions
    The European Hydrogen Strategy intends to introduce blue hydrogen – produced
    from fossil fuels and combined with CCS – as a large-scale interim solution. If this
    proposal is implemented, the combustion of fossil fuels will not only be prolonged, but
    also enlarged. Moreover, with CCS, the EU is relying on a technology that, despite
    long development cycles and extensive public funding, is still in its infancy, incurs
    high costs, and cannot guarantee safe storage of captured CO2
    .
    The European Hydrogen Strategy calls for hydrogen to play a key role in achieving a climate-neutral Europe. Currently, hydrogen makes up only a small share of the EU’s energy
    mix – which is predominantly produced from fossil fuels and generates large amounts
    of CO2
    . The EU aims to expand renewable hydrogen (“green hydrogen”), produced with
    renewable energies such as wind or solar energy, on a large scale. In the short and medium term, however, forms of so-called “low-carbon hydrogen” are also to be used, i.e.,
    hydrogen produced with fossil energy is to be combined with CCS (“blue hydrogen”). The
    Commission justifies this transitional phase, which allows the continued use of fossil energy
    sources for hydrogen production, as follows: “an incentivising, supportive policy framework
    needs to enable renewable and, in a transitional period, low-carbon hydrogen to contribute
    to decarbonisation at the lowest possible cost”.
    The Hydrogen Strategy will be pursued in three phases. In the first phase, from 2020 – 2024,
    a regulatory framework for a hydrogen market will be created, including “bridging the cost
    gap between conventional solutions and renewable and low-carbon hydrogen and through
    appropriate State aid rules”. In the second phase, from 2025 – 2030, projects are to be financed, e.g., “retrofitting of existing fossil-based hydrogen production with carbon capture”.
    In the third phase, from 2020-2030, approximatively €11 billion will be invested “in retrofitting half of the existing [hydrogen] plants with carbon capture and storage”. The Hydrogen
    Strategy concludes by stating that “low-carbon hydrogen can contribute to reduce greenhouse
    gas emissions ahead of 2030”. On what grounds this statement was made, since the intended CCS tests did not take place, is uncertain. The European Environmental Agency (EEA)
    stated in 2017 that CCS solutions “are expected to contribute to overall climate efforts
    but it is unclear whether or not they can be implemented at the scale needed and be viable
    and truly sustainable in the long term”. In 2020, the EEA adds that “currently, there are
    around 80 large scale CCS projects at various stages of development around the world but
    only a few are operational. There are as yet no large-scale CCS plants in operation which
    cover all three elements of the CCS chain – the capture, transport and storage of CO2
    .” As
    already observed in the previous chapter, the EU is thus relying on a technology that has
    not yet been proven. Nevertheless, blue hydrogen is scheduled for short- and medium-term
    Geoengineering in the European Union 12/39
    use. There are several reasons to question the undertaking and investments in the billions:
    • On the state of development of CCS technology: A recent European Commission
    communication on the potential of offshore renewable energy reports that in 1991,
    off the coast of Denmark, the world’s first offshore wind farm was installed and that
    “30 years later, offshore wind energy is a mature, large-scale technology providing
    energy for millions of people across the globe.” In 1996, the world’s first CO2 injection project was set up off the coast of Norway, but compared to wind power, CCS is
    still in its infancy. This raises the question of whether the planned investments
    in CCS as an interim solution should not rather be used for solutions that already
    work or that make sense in the long run.
    • On the cost of CCS – technology: The European Commission communication on
    the potential of offshore renewable energy in the EU states, that “today, offshore
    wind produces clean electricity that compete with, and sometimes is cheaper than
    existing fossil fuel-based technology.” In contrast, many CCS projects have not
    been realised, because they are too expensive, despite heavy public funding.
    • On the GHG footprint of blue hydrogen: The European Hydrogen Strategy describes blue hydrogen as “low-carbon hydrogen”. A recently published peerreviewed study proves that the term “low-carbon” is misleading by examining the
    lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of blue hydrogen accounting for both carbon
    dioxide and unburned fugitive methane. It finds that heating with blue hydrogen
    leaves a 20% larger GHG footprint compared to heating with fossil fuels such
    as natural gas or coal. In comparison to diesel oil, blue hydrogen even causes
    about 60% higher emissions. Equipping fossil fuel combustion plants with CCS increases their fuel consumption by up to 40%. The release of fugitive methane also
    dismisses blue hydrogen as a means for climate mitigation. For the study’s conservative default assumptions for methane emissions, total carbon dioxide equivalent
    emissions for blue hydrogen are only 9%-12% less than for gray hydrogen. In a sensitivity analysis in which the methane emission rate from natural gas is reduced to
    a low value under 2 %, greenhouse gas emissions from blue hydrogen are still greater than from simply burning natural gas. The analysis assumes that captured carbon dioxide can be stored indefinitely, an optimistic and unproven assumption. Thus,
    the study concludes: “We see no way that blue hydrogen can be considered ‘green’.”
    • On the environmental risks of CCS – technology: As CCS is very energy-intensive,
    large-scale deployment of blue hydrogen means that more fossil fuels have to be exploited. In addition, the European Hydrogen Strategy assumes that underground storage of CO2
    is safe. However, this has not been proven and the possibility of leaks due
    to faulty construction, earthquakes or other underground movements argue against it.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 13/39
  10. EU funding increasingly plays a role in
    financing geoengineering projects
    During the first four EU multi-annual Framework Programmes, research projects on
    geoengineering played little or no role. Especially during FP7 and FP8, the number
    of EU-funded geoengineering projects and the funding allocated to them increased
    significantly. With regard to its content, this trend will continue in FP9, even though
    the proposed geoengineering technologies have no track record, are associated with
    significant risks, and do not address the root causes of climate change.
    Starting in 1984, the European Union has bundled its research, technological development
    and demonstration programs into multi-annual Framework Programmes (FP). FP1 (1984-
    1987) and FP2 (1987-1991) have no reference to the subject of geoengineering in terms of
    content. FP1 includes several studies on the circulation of CO2 in the atmosphere, in oceans
    and on a global scale.3
    An examination of anthropogenic influences on the climate begins
    in the context of individual research projects in FP2.4 In FP3 (1991-1994) and FP4 (1994-
    1998) the EU funded the first research projects on the technical and economic feasibility
    of CO2 capture from fossil fuel derived flue gas, on CO2 fixation in marine environments,
    as well as an initial study on the feasibility of geological CO2 storage. Figure 2, based on
    annex 1, shows how the number of geoengineering projects in the Framework Programmes
    has developed and provides an overview of the programme contents. The data analysed and
    presented in annex 1 not only confirm that the number of research projects on geoengineering has increased more than fivefold over the past decades, but also that the number
    of GE experiments has multiplied. Within FP8, with 55 known EU-funded GE projects,
    more than 40 field trials were conducted, including demonstration sites for CO2
    capture
    and CCUS, CO2 injection sites, and marine offshore trial sites.
    3 European Commission (2021) CORDIS database – FP1 projects: Interdisciplinary study of the
    carbon cycle – to study the temporal variations of atmospheric trace gases, Global climate and
    atmospheric carbon dioxide: role of circulation, Global climate and atmospheric carbon dioxide:
    role of ocean circulation, Interdisciplinary study on the carbon cycle – simulation of carbon cycle
    and CO2-concentration in the atmosphere, Global climate and CO2: The role of oceanic circulation
    4 European Commission (2021) CORDIS database – FP2 projects: Emissions of greenhouse gases
    from coal-fired plants, Biochemical carbon cycling in coastal zones, The global carbon cycle and its
    perturbation by man and climate, The global carbon cycle and its perturbation by man and climate,
    The greenhouse effect and European economic growth
    Geoengineering in the European Union 14/39
    Information on the budgets of geoengineering projects and the funding shares allocated by
    the European Union are available for the Framework Programmes FP5 to FP8. Figure 3
    and the data presented in annex 2 show that funding for geoengineering projects in FP8
    has increased more than fifteenfold compared to FP5. At the same time, the volume of
    funding for geoengineering projects, measured against the total budget of each Framework
    Programme, has increased almost fivefold. The share of EU funding for individual projects
    has also climbed: In FP5, FP6 and FP7, the EU covered on average 50% of the project
    costs. In FP8, this share increased to 73.4%.
    Figure 2: The number of EU-funded projects on geoengineering has increased significantly
    in FP7 and FP8. Please see Annex 1 for further details.
    0 10 20 30 40 50 60
    FP1 (1984-1987)
    FP2 (1987-1991)
    FP3 (1991-1994)
    FP4 (1994-1998)
    FP5 (1998-2002)
    FP6 (2002-2006)
    FP7 (2007-2013)
    FP8 (2014-2020)
    Number and contents of EU-funded geoengineering projects
    Biochar
    BECCS
    CO2-capture
    CCS
    CCUS
    DAC
    Marine GE (e.g., Ocean fertilisation)
    SRM-related projects
    Other
    2
    Number of projects
    Biochar BECCS CO2
    -capture CCS CCUS DAC
    Marine GE (e.g., Ocean fertilisation) SRM-related projects Other
    Geoengineering in the European Union 15/39
    FP8, also named Horizon 2020, is now being replaced by FP9, aka Horizon Europe. The
    European Green Deal stipulated that “at least 35% of the budget of Horizon Europe will
    fund new solutions for climate”. Horizon Europe has a total budget of €95.5 billion. In
    Pillar II, Cluster 5 – Climate, Energy and Mobility, FP9 aims to accelerate the development of various geoengineering approaches. The 2021-2022 Work Programme for Cluster 5
    includes CO2 capture technologies, CCUS in the power sector and energy intensive industries, CCUS possibilities in hubs and clusters, so-called “low-carbon” hydrogen from natural gas with CCUS, DAC approaches, CCS, geological CO2 storage, and biochar. It can
    therefore be assumed that the amount of EU funding for GE-relevant research projects will
    not decrease in FP9, but rather increase. This is also supported by the fact that in February
    2020, the European Parliament confirmed five pan-European CCS/CCUS networks as
    “Projects of Common Interest”, even though the geoengineering technologies in question
    have no track record, pose significant risks and do not address the root causes of climate
    change. The selected CCS/CCUS networks include the Dutch projects ATHOS and PORTHOS , the Irish Ervia Cork CCS, the Longship CCS in Norway and the British Acorn CCS.
    Inclusion in the list of Projects of Common Interest means that projects can apply for priority funding, but there is no guarantee of funding.
    0%
    10%
    20%
    30%
    40%
    50%
    60%
    70%
    80%
    0
    50
    100
    150
    200
    250
    300
    350
    400
    450
    500
    FP5 FP6 FP7 FP8 (H2020)
    EU funding for GE projects in FP’s 5 to 8
    Total budget for GE projects per FP (in € million)
    EU share of total budget (in € million)
    Average EU-funding share for individual GE projects (in %)
    Figure 3: EU funding for geoengineering projects has increased in several ways:
    The funding volume in the individual FPs has grown as well as the percentage of
    EU-funding per project. Please see annex 2 for further details. € million
    Geoengineering in the European Union 16/39
  11. The role of geoengineering in nationally
    elaborated climate plans gaps widely
    The national strategy plans take very different positions on geoengineering technologies:
    some do not mention them at all, while in one case a GE approach is described as
    a “breakthrough technology”, others assume that geoengineering technologies will
    become interesting in 10 to 20 years at the earliest. Where geoengineering technologies
    are mentioned, mostly CCS and/or CCUS, they are to be tested and further developed,
    the latter mainly to reduce their high costs. An additional concern is the very high
    energy consumption of CCS and CCUS, adding to the consumption of fossil fuels. As
    a result, many proposed GE projects are suspected of generating extra emissions.
    To outline the role of geoengineering at the national level, climate relevant national strategic plans of the EU member states, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom
    were reviewed – to understand which forms of GE matter and to what extent. The National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) and the National Recovery and Resilience Plans
    (NRRPs) submitted to the European Commission were examined, where available, as well as
    the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) submitted to the UNFCCC secretariat. In
    the NECPs, the EU member states provide information on national energy and climate targets for the period 2021 to 2030, based on Regulation (EU) 2017/1999 on the Governance
    of the Energy Union and Climate Action. In order to be eligible for the European Recovery
    and Resilience Facility, EU member states must submit a NRRP that allocates at least 37%
    of spending to climate-related investments. The NDCs are based on the Paris Agreement,
    article 4, paragraph 2, and outline post-2020 climate action at national level. In addition to
    the information in the National Strategic Plans, the available date in the Geoengineering Map
    was used to examine what experiences the individual countries have gained to date with the
    geoengineering technologies identified in their National Strategic Plans.
    The results in annex 3 demonstrate that four countries – Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal and
    Switzerland – make no reference to researching or using geoengineering technologies in
    their national strategic plans. In the case of Malta and Luxembourg, no experience with
    geoengineering technologies has come to light to date. However, Portuguese and Swiss research institutions and companies have participated in pan-European research projects on
    geoengineering. In Switzerland, public funding has been made available for geoengineering
    projects on several occasions, and spin-offs of the ETH Zurich develop and commercialise
    geoengineering technologies, including outside Switzerland.
    The national strategic plans of the other countries address up to three geoengineering technologies, including CCS, CCU, CCUS, BECCS and DAC. CCS is mentioned most often, 23 times,
    CCU/CCUS second most often, 18 times, and DAC and BECCS two to three times each.
    The views on the future role of the aforementioned geoengineering technologies differ widely. The Austrian NECP describes CCUS as a “breakthrough technology for industry”, although there is little experience on CCUS at national level. The Cypriot NECP did not
    consider CCU technologies “due to the lack of available data”. In the context of CCUS, it
    is important to mention that CCUS products are not a permanent CO2 storage. Moreover,
    Geoengineering in the European Union 17/39
    CCUS is very energy- and cost-intensive, especially the process of CO2 capture. As a result,
    there is a risk that CCUS generates additional climate-related emissions instead of avoiding them.
    With CCS, the energy and cost issues are similar, and in addition, the underground storage
    of CO2
    is associated with high risks. As a result, more than 50% of known CCS proposals
    in Germany have been cancelled due to public opposition. Nevertheless, the German NECP
    states with regard on CCS that a “vast majority of studies and scenarios have now confirmed that from today’s perspective, CCS technology is vital for the achievement of greenhouse gas neutrality by 2050”. The Finnish NRRP describes CCS as an “important technology” with “the potential to grow into a huge market”, although the only known Finnish
    CCS project was discontinued due to technological and financial risks. The Dutch NECP
    considers CCS “as an inevitable transition technology for reducing CO2 emissions in sectors
    where no cost-effective alternative is available in the short term”. The Polish NECP points
    out that CCS technology is “recommended by the European Commission”, but “despite a
    wide-ranging research effort, it will be extremely difficult for CCS technologies to become
    commercially mature”. In addition, the Polish NECP states that “CCS technologies have
    proved to be very difficult to apply widely” and, that “it is not a foregone conclusion when
    these technologies will be commercially available, given that the last 10 years have not
    brought any significant progress, especially in terms of cost reduction”. The Hungarian
    and Slovenian NECPs assume that CCS will become interesting in 10 to 20 years at the
    earliest. The results of CCS projects to date confirm this: Major CCS projects worldwide,
    which were highly praised by the industry in their early days, are struggling with major
    technical and financial problems – despite very substantial public funding in the millions,
    e.g., the Australian Gorgon CCS project, the US Petra Nova project and the Canadian SaskPower project. Apart from the fact that the safety of underground storage of captured CO2
    has not been proven, the captured CO2
    is often used for Enhanced Oil Recovery – thus extracting more oil and producing extra emissions.
    The NDCs of Norway and the UK barely mention geoengineering technologies. However, this contrasts with the scale of public funding programmes for geoengineering – both
    countries have significant public funding available, including for the Longship CCS project
    in Norway and the HyNet North West project in the UK. In the European context, these
    two countries have had the most extensive experience with CCS, but many projects have
    failed, mostly due to high costs. Or fossil fuel companies have been unwilling to undertake
    CCS projects without substantial public funding, as in the case of the Logannet project.
    Some countries have been more specific regarding the expenditure or projects that will be
    implemented in relation to geoengineering: The Belgian NRRP announced €10 million to
    demonstrate CCS and CCUS. The Croatian NECP envisages a national feasibility study to assess CCS and CCUS; the costs of the study are estimated at HRK 1 million. The Danish NRRP
    proposes DKK 200 million “for a subsidy scheme to support the development and demonstration of CO2 storage sites in depleted oil and gas fields in the Danish part of the North Sea”.
    The Finnish NRRP will set up a €156 million programme to encourage “the scaling up of
    hydrogen production using clean energy and its utilisation and of carbon dioxide capture
    and use/storage”. The Romanian NRRP includes support for two gas-fired power plants
    with CO2 capture. Both projects, Halanga and Constanta, plan to channel the captured CO2
    into greenhouses, which means that the captured CO2
    will be released back into the atmosphere after a short period of time. As CO2 capture consumes more natural gas, additional
    emissions are generated – an issue that applies to the entire CCUS/CCS sector.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 18/39
  12. The number of geoengineering actors
    in the EU is increasing
    The number of lobbying organisations working on geoengineering in the EU has
    doubled within the last few years. Some of the organisations have been initiated and
    financially supported by the European Commission. It seems that the natural gas
    industry in particular is strongly committed in order to continue using fossil fuels, but
    in combination with CCS. Many members of the advocacy organisations have been
    involved in EU-FP projects on geoengineering – their share of project partners from
    industry was almost 50%.
    In Europe, there are at least 20 larger and smaller organisations actively promoting the
    use of geoengineering technologies. Of these, half have been founded only recently – within
    the last five years. The organisations most frequently advocate for CCS, CCUS and socalled “low-carbon gases/low-carbon hydrogen” (please see annex 4).
    Four of the initiatives were launched with EU funding, including the CCUS Projects Network
    and CO2
    GeoNet. The CCUS Projects Network aims to support industrial CCUS/CCS projects and “works closely with the European Commission and the Network’s Steering Committee to ensure that members’ needs and interests are provided for while supporting the
    EU’s climate action ambitions”. In its early years, the network received €3 million in
    funding under an EU FP7 project and continues to receive EU support. However, it is led by
    its members, including Gassnova, Tata Steel, Drax and the Port of Rotterdam. CO2
    GeoNet
    advocates for CCS and aims to be the preferred source of “information and advice for the
    European Union, industry, regulators, the general public and other CCS stakeholders”. The
    network emerged from an eponymous EU FP6-project and was funded with €6 million.
    Public funding has also been spent in the UK to finance geoengineering initiatives, including the CCUS Advisory Group. This group is to support the implementation of the CCUSUK Action Plan and includes representatives from Shell, BP, Tata Steel and Drax.
    No less than six organisations are campaigning for “low-carbon hydrogen” with CCS. Their
    members are mainly companies from the natural gas sector that seek to develop a hydrogen
    economy based on existing infrastructures. One of the organisations is Hydrogen Europe – a
    lobbying platform with nearly 200 industry members. In addition to its lobbying activities,
    Hydrogen Europe is simultaneously working with the European Commission as a research body
    in a joint undertaking on hydrogen. This close link between industry and research can also be
    observed in the research projects on geoengineering in the European framework programmes.
    There, the share of project partners from industry is almost 50%. The majority of industrial partners come from the energy sector or from energy-intensive industries. The companies
    that have participated most frequently in EU-funded FP projects, more than ten times, include
    ALSTOM Power, RWE Power AG, Shell, Statoil and Vattenfall. Among the research institutions, the most frequent participants, more than 15 times, were SINTEF (Norway), TNO
    (Netherlands), CSIC (Spain), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (France), Bureau de
    Recherches Géologiques et Minières (France), and the British NERC. The EU-funded research
    projects on geoengineering were not evenly distributed across the EU. Research institutions
    and industrial partners from the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Norway and Italy
    were most frequently involved and coordinated more than two thirds of the projects.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 19/39
  13. Geoengineering is not compatible with the
    goals of the European Green Deal – and
    may even make it more difficult
    to achieve them
    The European Green Deal aims to address climate and environmental challenges.
    Geoengineering is not an appropriate response to these challenges, as the proposed
    geoengineering technologies pose unmanageable risks for the environment and may
    even hinder the implementation of the European Green Deal goals. One example
    is the very high energy consumption of CO2
    capture processes underlying many
    geoengineering technologies. The high consumption can lead to both increased fossil
    fuel extraction and a delayed phase-out of fossil fuels.
    The following table provides selected examples of why the use of geoengineering is more
    detrimental than beneficial to the goals under the umbrella of the European Green Deal.
    Targets to be implemented
    under the umbrella of
    the European Green Deal
    Inconsistencies with the European Green Deal arising
    from the use of geoengineering technologies
    The European Green Deal
    demands the “phasing out
    of fossil fuels”.
    Prolonged/increased use of fossil fuels: The combination with CCS/CCUS, is intended to justify the continued use of fossil fuels. However, the CO2 capture process is very
    energy-intensive, which leads to a significantly higher consumption of fossil fuels. The
    higher consumption delays the phase-out of fossil fuels.
    The high energy consumption of many of the GE-approaches would lead to increased
    extraction and combustion of fossil fuels. Yet, according to the EEA, the EU is already
    importing about 50% of its domestic energy consumption and “the EU’s dependence on
    fossil fuel imports has increased”. The extra combustion of fossil fuels due to the deployment of GE technologies would lead to added climate-related emissions along the entire
    fossil fuel value chain.
    The European Green Deal
    “aims to protect, conserve
    and enhance the EU’s natural capital, and protect
    the health and well-being
    of citizens from environment-related risks and
    impacts”.
    The Zero Pollution Action
    Plan calls “improving air
    quality to reduce the number of premature deaths
    caused by air pollution by
    55%”.
    Air pollution: GE technologies focus on the capture of CO2
    . But the combustion of fossil
    fuels also releases methane and air pollutants. Methane is not only an important greenhouse
    gas, but can also reacts with other chemicals in the atmosphere to form ozone and to reduce
    the amount of “detergent” available to clean other types of pollutants. With further use of
    natural gas in particular, e.g., to produce blue hydrogen, fugitive methane emissions will
    increase. The air pollutants include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, non-methane volatile
    organic compounds, and particulate matter. The high energy usage of many GE technologies, such as CCS, can translate into more fossil fuels being combusted and more pollutants
    being released into the environment. This applies to power plants but also to many other
    energy-intensive industries. The pollutants may cause different and also multiple damages.
    One example is black carbon, which is formed during the incomplete combustion of fossil
    fuels. The EEA describes black carbon as particularly harmful to health and climate “as it
    represents a mixture of very fine, partly carcinogenic particles, small enough to enter the
    bloodstream and reach other organs”; and “In the atmosphere the carbon-containing pollutant effectively absorbs solar radiation leading to a warming of the atmosphere. When
    it settles on snow or ice, the darker colour absorbs more heat, accelerating melting.”.
    Not only with regard to CO2
    , but also with regard to air pollutants, neither prolonged nor
    increased burning of fossil fuels is compatible with the goals of the European Green Deal.
    But this is exactly where the use of energy-intensive GE technologies can lead.
    Table 1: Geoengineering technologies and their inconsistencies with the targets under the
    umbrella of the European Green Deal
    Geoengineering in the European Union 20/39
    Targets to be implemented
    under the umbrella of
    the European Green Deal
    Inconsistencies with the European Green Deal arising
    from the use of geoengineering technologies
    The New European
    Strategy on Adaptation to
    Climate Change finds that
    “The EU committed to
    climate neutrality by 2050
    and a more ambitious
    emissions reduction target
    of at least 55% by 2030,
    compared to 1990. A
    climate emergency has
    been recognised by the
    European Parliament, by
    several Member States,
    and by over 300 cities.
    The European Council has
    concluded that climate
    change is “an existential
    threat”.”
    CO2 storage safety: No geoengineering technology can guarantee safe and long-term
    CO2 storage. The safety of geological CO2 storage sites is not proven – leakages cannot
    be excluded, e.g., due to underground movements. Moreover, captured CO2 is often used
    for EOR, leading to the extraction of more fossil fuels and even greater emissions.
    If the injected CO2
    were to escape, humans, animals and nature could be harmed. The
    leaked, anthropogenically emitted CO2
    degrades only very slowly. After 1,000 years, up
    to 40% is still in the atmosphere. However, the entire decomposition process takes several
    hundred thousand years.
    Effective response to the climate emergency: Geoengineering technologies cannot be
    deployed quickly on a large scale, are associated with unmanageable risks and also with
    high investment and energy costs. Thus, they are not a suited to respond to the climate
    emergency declared by the European Parliament.
    Increase in GHG emissions: According to the EEA, the EU imports about 50% of its
    domestic energy consumption and “the EU’s dependence on fossil fuel imports has increased”. The large energy consumption of many GE processes, such as CCUS and CCS,
    would exacerbate this trend and lead to additional climate-relevant emissions along the
    entire fossil fuel value chain. This cannot be an appropriate response to the declared
    climate emergency.
    EU strategy to reduce
    methane emissions
    (Communication from the
    European Commission).
    Methane emissions (and safety of proposed CO2 storage sites): “In the energy sector,
    methane leaks from fossil fuel production sites, transmission systems, ships and distribution systems […] contribute to 50% of the energy sector’s emissions”. Abandoned mines,
    oil and gas sites can have significant levels of emission, “however, at present, there are
    no EU-wide rules on checking, measuring or utilising methane leakage or emissions from
    coalmines or oil and gas wells after their closure.” If the deployment of energy-intensive GE technologies delays the phase-out of fossil fuels, methane emissions will endure.
    A recent study points to the large number of methane leaks from fossil extraction sites.
    The same structures are proposed for underground storage of CO2 – casting further doubt
    on the safety of underground storage. Even with very strict regulations for the oil and gas
    sector, methane emissions will remain a problem: The Climate & Clean Air Coalition’s(CCAC)
    Scientific Advisory Panel estimates that a maximum of 70% of methane emissions from
    fossil fuels can be abated. This means that blue hydrogen will always face a methane
    problem, which will not be solved by CCS and CCU.
    Chemicals Strategy for
    Sustainability. Towards a
    Toxic-Free Environment
    (Communication from the
    European Commission).
    Production and disposal of chemicals: Many technical approaches to CO2 capture require very large quantities of toxic chemicals. These chemicals not only have to be produced, but also transported and disposed of. Geoengineering would therefore complicate
    the path to a toxic-free environment.
    On a new approach for a
    sustainable blue economy
    in the EU. Transforming
    the EU’s Blue Economy
    for a Sustainable Future
    (Communication from the
    European Commission).
    Conservation and security of marine ecosystems: The EC’s Communication on a
    Sustainable Blue Economy highlights the importance of marine ecosystems. The “oceans
    hold 97% of all our water and 80% of all life forms”, “food for almost half of humanity, and
    critical resources for human health, not to mention a web of economic interactions”. Some
    geoengineering proposals are to be implemented directly in the marine environment. The effectiveness of these proposals has not been proven, and the associated risks, e.g., for marine
    food chains, are incalculable. But a delayed phase-out of fossil fuels, due to energy-intensive
    GE technologies, is also associated with drawbacks for the marine environment, such as oil
    spills, acidification, changes in water temperature, and biodiversity loss.
    European Green Deal: “All
    EU policies should contribute to preserving and
    restoring Europe’s natural
    capital” new EU Strategy
    on Adaptation to Climate
    Change: “implementing
    nature-based solutions on
    a larger scale would increase climate resilience
    and contribute to multiple
    Green Deal objectives”.
    Land usage: Geoengineering technologies that rely on biomass, such as BECCS and
    biochar, would consume a great deal of land if introduced on a large scale. This would not
    only create competition with food production, but also jeopardise the desired conservation
    and restoration of natural capital.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 21/39
    List of sources
    Chapter 1
    ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2021) What is Geoengineering?, accessed:
    08/2021, https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/what-is-geoengineering/
    European Commission (2020) Stepping up Europe’s 2030 climate ambition. Investing
    in a climate-neutral future for the benefit of our people, published: 17.09.2020,
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020SC0176
    European Commission (2019) The European Green Deal, published: 11.12.2019,
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1588580774040&uri=CELEX-
    :52019DC0640
    European Commission (2018) A Clean Planet for all. European long-term strategic
    vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy, published:
    28.11.2018, https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/default/files/docs/pages/com_2018_733_
    analysis_in_support_en_0.pdf
    European Commission (2013) on the Future of Carbon Capture and Storage in Europe,
    published: 27.03.2013, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX-
    %3A52013DC0180
    Chapter 2
    ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2021) Geoengineering Map, accessed: 08/2021,
    https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
    European Commission (2012) Questions and Answers on the outcome of the first call for
    proposals under the NER300 programme, published: 18.12.2012,
    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_12_999
    European Commission (2013) The Future of Carbon Capture and Storage in Europe,
    published: 27.03.2013, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX-
    :52013DC0180
    European Commission (2013) On the implementation of The European Energy
    Programme for Recovery, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX-
    :52013DC0791
    European Commission (2013) Number of project proposals submitted to the EIB under
    the NER 300 funding programme by 3 July 2013 per Member State,
    https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/default/files/ner300/docs/project_proposals_en.pdf
    European Commission (2014) Questions and Answers on the outcome of the second call
    for proposals under the NER 300 programme, published: 08.07.2014,
    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_14_465
    All of the proposed geoengineering technologies carry unmanageable risks, and many of the
    proposals are very costly and energy-intensive. One of the biggest risks, however, is that geoengineering technologies create a false sense of security, even though none of the proposed
    technologies have been proven to work – despite decades of research and extensive funding.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 22/39
    European Commission (2018) On the implementation of the European Energy
    Programme for Recovery and the European Energy Efficiency Fund, published:
    05.03.2018, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0086
    European Commission (2019) The European Green Deal, published: 11.12.2019,
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1588580774040&uri=CELEX-
    :52019DC0640
    European Commission (2020) On the implementation of the European Energy
    Programme for Recovery and the European Energy Efficiency Fund, published:
    10.02.2020, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0038&qid=1630597612471
    European Commission (2021) EU funding possibilities in the energy sector: European
    Energy Programme for Recovery, accessed: 08/2021, https://ec.europa.eu/energy/funding-and-contracts/eu-funding-possibilities-in-the-energy-sector_en#european-energy-programme-for-recovery
    European Commission (2021) NER 300 programme, accessed: 08/2021,
    https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/innovation-fund/ner300_en
    European Commission (2021) Innovation Fund, accessed: 08/2021,
    https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/innovation-fund_en#tab-0-1
    European Court of Auditors (2018) Demonstrating carbon capture and storage and innovative renewables at commercial scale in the EU: intended progress not achieved in the
    past decade, https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/climate-action-24-2018/en/
    Chapter 3
    ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2021) Geoengineering Map, accessed: 08/2021,
    https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
    ETC Group & Heinrich Boell Foundation (2021) Geoengineering Technology Briefing:
    Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), published: January 2021, https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/carbon-capture-and-storage.pdf
    European Commission (2020) An EU Strategy to harness the potential of offshore
    renewable energy for a climate neutral future, published: 19.11.2020,
    https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/offshore_renewable_energy_strategy.pdf
    European Commission (2020) A hydrogen strategy for a climate-neutral Europe,
    published: 08.07.2020, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX-
    :52020DC0301
    European Environment Agency (2020) Carbon capture and storage could also impact air
    pollution, published: 17.11.2011, updated: 23.11.2020,
    https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/carbon-capture-and-storage-could
    European Environment Agency (2017) Energy and climate change, published:
    29.08.2017, https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2017/articles/energy-and-climate-change
    Howarth, R.W. & Jacobson, M.Z. (2021) How green is blue hydrogen?, in:
    Energy Science % Engineering, published: 12.08.2021,
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ese3.956
    Geoengineering in the European Union 23/39
    Chapter 4
    ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2021) Geoengineering Map, accessed: 08/2021,
    https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
    European Commission (2019) The European Green Deal, published: 11.12.2019,
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1588580774040&uri=CELEX-
    :52019DC0640
    European Commission (2021) CORDIS database : FP1 programme,
    https://cordis.europa.eu/search/en
    European Commission (2021) Horizon Europe, accessed: 08/2021,
    https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/funding/funding-opportunities/fundingprogrammes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe_en
    European Commission (2021) Horizon Europe Work Programme 2021-2022, 8. Climate,
    Energy and Mobility, accessed: 09/2021, https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/wp-call/2021-2022/wp-8-climate-energy-and-mobility_horizon-2021-2022_en.pdf
    European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2021), Horizon
    Europe, published: 04.05.2021, https://op.europa.eu/en/web/eu-law-and-publications/publication-detail/-/publication/1f107d76-acbe-11eb-9767-01aa75ed71a1
    European Regulation (EU) No. 347/2013 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure, consolidated version: 31.03.2020, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
    TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02013R0347-20200331
    Chapter 5
    ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2021) Geoengineering Map, accessed: 08/2021,
    https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
    ETC Group & Heinrich Boell Foundation (2021) Geoengineering Technology Briefing:
    Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), published: January 2021, https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/carbon-capture-and-storage.pdf
    ETC Group & Heinrich Boell Foundation (2021) Geoengineering Technology Briefing:
    Carbon Capture Use and Storage (CCUS), published: January 2021, https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/carbon-capture-use-and-storage.pdf
    European Commission (2021) National energy and climate plans, accessed: September 2021, https://ec.europa.eu/info/energy-climate-change-environment/implementation-eu-countries/energy-and-climate-governance-and-reporting/national-energy-and-climate-plans_en
    European Commission (2021) National recovery and resilience plans, accessed: September 2021, https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/recovery-coronavirus/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en#national-recovery-and-resilience-plans
    UNFCCC-United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2021)
    NDC Registry (interim), accessed: September 2021,
    https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NDCStaging/Pages/All.aspx
    Geoengineering in the European Union 24/39
    Chapter 6
    ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2021) Geoengineering Map, accessed: 08/2021,
    https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
    Sources listed in annex 4
    Chapter 7
    Böttner, et al. (2020) Greenhouse gas emissions from marine decommissioned hydrocarbon wells: leakage detection, monitoring and mitigation strategies, in: International
    Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 100, September 2020,
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2020.103119
    ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2021) Geoengineering Map, accessed: 08/2021,
    https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
    ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2021) What is Geoengineering?, accessed:
    08/2021, https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/what-is-geoengineering/
    ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2021) Carbon Capture and Storage (technology
    briefing), published: 26.04.2021,
    https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2021/04/carbon_capture_storage/
    European Commission (2021) European Green Deal: Commission aims for zero pollution
    in air, water and soil, published: 12.05.2021,
    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_2345
    European Commission (2021) On a new approach for a sustainable blue economy in
    the EU. Transforming the EU’s Blue Economy for a Sustainable Future, published:
    17.05.2021, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2021:240:FIN
    European Commission (2021) Forging a climate-resilient Europe – the new EU Strategy
    on Adaptation to Climate Change, published: 24.02.2021,
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2021:82:FIN
    European Commission (2020) Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability. Towards a Toxic-Free Environment, published: 14.10.2020,
    https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/chemicals/2020/10/Strategy.pdf
    European Commission (2020) on an EU strategy to reduce methane emissions, published:
    14.10.2020, https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/eu_methane_strategy.pdf
    European Commission (2019) European Green Deal, published: 11.12.2019,
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1588580774040&uri=CELEX-
    :52019DC0640
    European Environmental Agency (2021) Energy in Europe – State of play, published:
    29.08.2017, updated: 11.05.2021,
    https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2017/articles/energy-in-europe-2014-state-1
    European Environmental Agency (2021) Global and local: secure and affordable energy,
    published: 29.08.2017, updated: 11.05.2021,
    https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2017/articles/global-and-local-secure-and
    European Environmental Agency (2021) The challenge of reducing industrial pollution,
    published: 15.10.2020, updated: 17.05.2021, https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2020/articles/the-challenge-of-reducing-industrial-pollution
    Geoengineering in the European Union 25/39
    European Environmental Agency (2019) Black carbon: Better monitoring needed to assess health and climate change impacts, published: 10.12.2013, updated: 10.12.2019,
    https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/black-carbon-better-monitoring-needed
    Geomar (2020) New study confirms extensive gas leaks in the North Sea, news release,
    published: 30.07.2020, https://www.geomar.de/en/news/article/neue-studie-bestaetigt-umfangreiche-gasleckagen-in-der-nordsee
    Umweltbundesamt (2021) Die Treibhausgase, published: 05.07.2021,
    https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/klima-energie/klimaschutz-energiepolitik-in-deutschland/treibhausgas-emissionen/die-treibhausgase
    Annexes
    Annex 1 (chapter 4, figure 2): Number and contents of EU-funded geoengineering projects
    FP
    No. of
    (known)
    projects
    Biochar BECCS CO2-
    capture CCS CCUS DAC
    Marine GE
    (e.g., Ocean
    fertilisation)
    SRMrelated
    projects
    Other
    Number
    of trial
    sites
    FP1
    (1984-1987)
    0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    FP2
    (1987-1991)
    0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    FP3
    (1991-1994)
    6 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
    FP4
    (1994-1998)
    4 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 3
    FP5
    (1998-2002)
    10 0 0 2 7 1 0 0 0 0 4
    FP6
    (2002-2006)
    16 0 0 7 8 0 0 0 0 1 5
    FP7
    (2007-2013)
    36 2 0 8 16 4 1 0 4 1 13
    FP8
    (2014-2020)
    55 0 1 10 16 23 0 2 0 3 41
    Sources:
    ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2021) Geoengineering Map, accessed: May 2021,
    https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
    European Commission (2021) CORDIS database, https://cordis.europa.eu/search/en
    Geoengineering in the European Union 26/39
    Annex 2 (chapter 4, figure 3): EU funding for GE projects in FP’s 5 to 8
    Framework
    Programme
    (FP)
    Number of
    (known)
    GE-related
    projects
    Total FP
    budget in
    Billion €
    GE-Projects:
    Total Budget
    in Million €
    GE-Projects:
    EU-share in
    Million €
    GE-Projects:
    EU-share
    in %
    EU funding:
    share of the
    known GE
    projects
    in total FP
    budget
    FP1 0 0 0 0 0
    FP2 0 0 0 0 0
    FP3 6 not available not available not available not available
    FP4 4 not available not available not available not available
    FP5 10 15.00 28.07 14.65 52.17% 0.10%
    FP6 16 17.50 119.12 65.10 54.65% 0.37%
    FP7 36 50.50 377.40 172.54 45.72% 0.34%
    FP8 (H2020) 55 70.20 456.77 335.21 73.39% 0.48%
    Sources:
    ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2021) Geoengineering Map, accessed: May 2021,
    https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
    Fabbi, F., European Commission, Press and Communication Directorate-General (2002) The 6t
    h EU Research
    Framework Programme ready for the kick-off: Commissioner Philippe Busquin outlines the way forward, published:
    21.06.2002,
    https://www.innovations-report.de/sonderthemen/veranstaltungsnachrichten/bericht-61941/
    Federal Ministry of Education and Research (2021) Budget Horizont 2020, accessed: May 2021,
    https://www.horizont2020.de/einstieg-budget.htm
    Frima, H., European Commission (2007) The EU 7th Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development
    and Demonstration, published: 09.10.2007, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiEvfHcqq7wAhVCzaQKHToBDEcQFjACegQIBRAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fescies.org%2Fdownload%2FwebDocumentFile%3Fid%3D7197&usg=AOvVaw3m2oQYxsEyw0cRhFquVTa5
    McCarthy, S., Hyperion (2000) The EU Fifth Framework Programme, accessed: May 2021,
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwifrdyEpq7wAhVKNOwKHYYpDJAQFjAEegQIAhAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hyperion.ie%2FEU%2520R%26D%-
    2520Funding.PDF&usg=AOvVaw3h04KHdKfcfOcZT3vRfWA_
    Geoengineering in the European Union 27/39
    Annex 3 (chapter 5): The role of geoengineering in national strategic plans
    Country
    Geoengineering technologies addressed
    in national
    strategic plans
    The role of geoengineering
    technologies in national strategic plans
    (NECPs, NRRPs, NDCs, where available)
    Experience with the geoengineering
    technologies identified in the national
    strategic plans
    European Member States
    Austria CCU The Austrian NECP (12/2019) proposes CCUS as a “breakthrough technology
    for industry” and suggests “greater consideration should be given to the key opportunities offered by Carbon Capture and
    Utilisation (CCU) for European industry”.
    The Austrian company AVL List GmbH
    participates in the EU-funded EcoFuel project; the project aims to develop
    fuels based on captured CO2
    .
    Belgium CCS, CCUS The Belgian NECP (12/2019) proposes the
    large petrochemical clusters in Flanders as
    “an ideal region for developing new cooperation and integrating innovative systems
    allowing tens of millions of tonnes of CO2
    to be offset, collected or sequestered, or
    transformed into useful products” and announced studies in this context as well as to
    examine CO2 capture at waste incineration
    facilities, aiming to use the captured
    CO2 “as a raw material in a circular
    economy”. The Belgian NRRP (06/2021)
    announced €10 M to demonstrate CCS/
    CCUS as well as investments in the
    infrastructure for / production of hydrogen
    in combination with CCS/CCUS.
    Belgian companies and research institutions conducted several EU-funded
    research projects on CCUS and on
    CO2 capture. The pan-European project
    STEELANOL is currently constructing a
    CCUS pilot plant at ArcelorMittal’s steel
    plant in Gent. At the same site, ArcelorMittal and LanzaTech aim to demonstrate
    CO2 capture for the production of ethanol
    and further CO2 -based chemicals.
    Bulgaria BECCS The Bulgarian NECP (undated, accessed: 08/2021) considers biomass plants
    with CCS for electricity generation.
    Bulgarian research institutions participated in pan-European research projects
    on CCS and CO2 capture. Experiences in
    connection with BECCS have not yet
    been reported.
    Croatia CCS, CCUS The Croatian NECP (12/2019) proposes a
    platform for CCS and CCUS, to evaluate
    “a) availability of a suitable location for
    storage, b) transport facilities are technically and economically feasible and
    c) upgrade of facilities for CO2 capture is
    technically and economically feasible”.
    A National Feasibility Study will look at
    “emission sources, transport, injection and
    storage of CO2
    , and the interconnection
    of the CO2 transport system with other
    EU countries” and “plans to inform the
    public about carbon dioxide capture and
    storage technology”. The costs of the
    study are estimated at HRK 1 million.
    Croatian research institutions participated in pan-European research projects on
    CCUS and CO2 storage. There are plans to
    establish a CCS project at the geothermal
    plant AAAT Geothermae in Draškovec.
    Cyprus CCS, CCU The Cypriot NECP (01/2020) proposes to
    “assess the exploitation of CCS and CCU
    technologies” and adds: “However, it has
    been noted that emerging technologies like
    hydrogen and carbon capture and storage
    have not been considered in the above scenario due to the lack of available data”.
    The Electricity Authority of Cyprus
    participated in a pan-European research
    project on CO2 capture technologies.
    Czechia CCS, CCU The Czech NECP (11/2019) proposes to
    consider “a combination of natural gas
    with CCS or CCU”.
    Czech companies and research institutions
    participated in several pan-European
    research projects related to CO2 capture
    and CCS. The depleted oilfield LBr-1,
    in Moravia, is serving as a test site for
    CO2 injections, e.g., for the pan-European
    ENOS project. Plans for a CCS project in
    Vresova have been cancelled.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 28/39
    Country
    Geoengineering technologies addressed
    in national
    strategic plans
    The role of geoengineering
    technologies in national strategic plans
    (NECPs, NRRPs, NDCs, where available)
    Experience with the geoengineering
    technologies identified in the national
    strategic plans
    European Member States
    Denmark BECCS, CCS,
    CCUS
    The Danish NECP (12/2019) states that
    “CCS needs to be demonstrated at scale”
    and that “Bioenergy should be used in
    high-value sectors (transport), and sustainability remains a challenge”. The
    Danish NRRP proposes DKK 200 million
    “for a subsidy scheme to support the
    development and demonstration of
    CO2 storage sites in depleted oil and gas
    fields in the Danish part of the North Sea”.
    The NRRP adds that “CCS is foreseen
    to contribute significantly to the achievement of Danish greenhouse gas reduction
    targets” and that “storage sites for CO2
    in depleted Danish oil and gas fields could
    play an important role in storage of CO2
    from other EU member states”. “CCUS is
    expected to be a growing industry.”
    Danish research institutions coordinated various pan-European research
    projects on CCS. A new CCS project, a
    proposal with onshore CO2 capture and
    offshore injections, has concluded a first
    feasibility study. Former plans for an
    onshore CCS project have been cancelled.
    The Danish Union Engineering markets
    CCUS technology for recovering CO2
    from
    fermentation processes in breweries.
    Experiences in connection with BECCS
    have not yet been reported.
    Estonia CCS, CCUS The Estonian NECP (12/2019) states that
    “according to current knowledge, Estonia
    does not have suitable geological conditions for storing CO2
    ”. Currently, a study
    is conducted “to assess the suitability of
    different carbon capture technologies and
    develop scenarios for implementing these
    technologies in the Estonian oil shale industry”. The NECP proposes to look into
    “cooperation opportunities of the Nordic
    countries and Baltic States […] for the
    development of future technologies (energy
    storage, CCUS, hydrogen, etc.)”.
    Estonian companies and research
    institutions participated in various
    pan-European research projects on CCS
    and CCUS.
    Estonia is a member of the BASRECCS Network.
    Finland CCS, CCU The Finnish NRRP (2021) describes CCU
    and CCS as “important technologies”
    with “the potential to grow into a huge
    market”. A €156 million programme will
    be set up to encourage “the scaling up of
    hydrogen production using clean energy
    and its utilisation and of carbon dioxide
    capture and use/storage”.
    There was no reference to the use of geoengineering technologies in the European
    NDC or the Finnish NECP (12/2019).
    Finish research institutions and companies
    participated in various pan-European
    research projects on CO2 capture, CCUS
    and CCS. The Finish government financed
    research on biochar, DAC and CCUS and
    Finish companies developed CCUS and
    DAC technology. Plans for a CCS project
    have been cancelled.
    France BECCS, CCS,
    CCUS
    The French NECP (03/2020) states that
    “carbon capture and storage will only compensate for residual non-energy emissions
    and the residual emissions from fossil fuels
    that are still used for certain means of
    transport (aviation)” and that “in 2050,
    these technologies would make it possible to
    avoid around 6 MtCO2
    /year in industry and
    to achieve a dozen or so MtCO2
    each year
    in negative emissions for biomass energy
    generation installations (BECCS)”. The
    French NRRP (2021) proposes to decarbonize industry by “deploying decarbonised
    processes and carbon capture and storage
    or recovery”. In addition, the French NECP
    identified the following research and innovation requirements, among others: “carbon
    capture, storage and reuse solutions”.
    French research institutions and companies
    coordinated more than 15
    pan-European and EU-funded research
    projects on CO2 capture, CCUS and CCS,
    and conducted field tests to trial CO2
    capture and CO2 injections. French public
    funds financed additional projects, mainly
    on CCS, but also on BECCS and CCUS.
    A number of CCS projects have been
    implemented with the participation of
    companies in the energy sector.
    A CCUS pilot trial is conducted by Vicat.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 29/39
    Country
    Geoengineering technologies addressed
    in national
    strategic plans
    The role of geoengineering
    technologies in national strategic plans
    (NECPs, NRRPs, NDCs, where available)
    Experience with the geoengineering
    technologies identified in the national
    strategic plans
    European Member States
    Germany CCS, CCU,
    DAC
    The German NECP (2019) proposes to
    further develop “CCU/CCS options”. It
    states that a “vast majority of studies and
    scenarios have now confirmed that from
    today’s perspective, CCS technology is
    vital for the achievement of greenhouse
    gas neutrality by 2050”and that
    “technologies which separate carbon
    out of industrial exhaust gases and in
    particular the atmosphere are needed
    for this” The NECP adds that “research
    into carbon separation, transport,
    storage, long-term sequestration and
    use technologies will be stepped up so
    that domestic companies and research
    institutions can assume a pioneering role
    in this area”.
    Germany research institutions and
    companies coordinated more than
    15 pan-European and EU-funded
    research projects on CO2 capture,
    CCUS and CCS. The German public
    sector financed further projects, mainly
    on CCUS, CCS and DAC, often at
    industrial sites, in some cases also outside
    Germany, e.g., in Chile. Most pilot
    tests and demonstration projects were
    conducted by industry, e.g., in aviation,
    cement and further energy-intensive
    sectors. More than 50% of known
    CCS projects in Germany have been
    cancelled due to public opposition.
    Greece CCS, CCUS The Greek NECP (12/2019) proposes
    research to develop “CO2 capture, storage
    and use technologies” and “ensuring the
    capture, storage and utilisation of carbon
    dioxide from power generation plants using
    conventional fuels and industrial uses”.
    The Greek NRRP (04/2021) “contains a
    measure to develop Greece’s first carbon
    capture, utilisation and storage investment
    by developing transportation and storage
    on CO2
    into geological features.”
    Greece research institutions coordinated
    five pan-European projects on CO2 capture
    technologies and participated in various
    other pan-European research projects
    on CCS and CCUS. A hydrogen plant
    with CCS in Northern Greece has
    been proposed.
    Hungary CCS The Hungarian NECP (2019) states,
    that “power stations with CCS will be
    available only after 2030” and that
    “until CO2 capture and storage become
    economical it will probably not be
    profitable to build conventional coal-fired
    power plants in Europe”.
    Hungarian research institutions
    participated in several pan-European
    research projects on CCS, CCUS
    and DAC.
    Ireland CCS The Irish NECP (2019) proposes to
    “examine the feasibility of the utilisation
    of CCS in Ireland and to develop policy in
    the area” and “states that Carbon Capture
    and Storage (CCS) is recognised as a
    potential bridging technology that could
    support the transition to a low carbon
    economy”. The NECP adds that “Ireland
    adopted a 5-year CCS review process,
    which will inform any decision to commit
    resources to put regulatory and permitting
    systems in place” and “is currently
    assessing a project at feasibility stage
    promoted by Ervia”. The NECP proposes
    funding for various research areas, among
    them “carbon capture & storage (CCS)”.
    The Irish Department of Environment,
    Climate and Communications participated
    in a pan-European research project
    on CCS. A CCS project has been proposed
    by fossil-fuelled power companies.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 30/39
    Country
    Geoengineering technologies addressed
    in national
    strategic plans
    The role of geoengineering
    technologies in national strategic
    plans (NECPs, NRRPs, NDCs, where
    available)
    Experience with the geoengineering
    technologies identified in the national
    strategic plans
    European Member States
    Italy CCS, CCU The Italian NECP (12/2019) proposes
    to “promote the geological capture
    of CO2
    […] both in the electricity and
    industrial sectors” and to employ CO2
    “in power-to-liquid […] with
    CO2 captured from the air or derived
    from waste”.
    Italian research institutions coordinated
    more than five pan-European projects
    on CCUS and CO2 capture technologies
    and participated in further pan-European
    research projects on CCS and CCUS.
    Several pilot projects are located in Italy,
    including a CCS test site for the panEuropean ENOS project.
    Latvia CCS, CCU The Latvian NECP (11/2020) proposes
    “innovative solutions for capturing and
    reuse of carbon” and states that
    “in addition, future technologies (energy
    storage, CCU, hydrogen, etc.) will be
    sought in cooperation with the Nordic
    countries and the Baltic States”.
    Latvian research institutions participated
    in pan-European research projects on CCS
    and CCUS.
    Lithuania CCS, CCU The Lithuanian NECP (2019) states
    that it is “necessary to further
    develop carbon capture, use and
    storage technologies and to analyse
    their applications in Lithuania”.
    The proposed analysis will cover an
    “assessment of CO2
    capture, use and
    storage chain alternatives” as well as
    “a feasibility study on the application
    of CO2 capture, use and storage
    technologies in Lithuania”. The NECP
    also proposes “a detailed analysis of
    the feasibility and usefulness of projects
    implemented with other countries of
    the EU common economic area (to
    the geological structures of which the
    CO2 captured in Lithuania could be
    exported)”.
    Lithuanian research organisations
    participated in pan-European research
    projects on CCS and CCUS.
    Luxembourg – There is no reference to the use of
    geoengineering technologies in the
    European NDC, the Luxembourgian NECP (12/2018) and the Luxembourgian NRRP (06/2021).
    Information on geoengineering-related
    research activities in Luxembourg has not
    yet been reported.
    Malta – There is no reference to the use
    of geoengineering technologies
    in the European NDC,
    Malta’s NECP (12/2019) and
    Malta’s NRRP (2021).
    Information on geoengineering-related
    research activities in Malta has not yet
    been reported.
    The
    Netherlands
    CCS, CCU The Dutch NECP (11/2019) states
    that CCS is regarded “as an inevitable
    transition technology for reducing
    CO2 emissions in sectors where no
    cost-effective alternative is available in
    the short term”. The NECP proposes
    national “grants for CO2
    -reducing
    measures”, to combine CCS with
    hydrogen production, and to work “with
    other Member States
    to achieve […] the joint development
    of CCU/CCS”.
    Dutch research institutions and companies
    coordinated about 15 pan-European
    projects on CCS, CO2 capture technologies
    and CCUS, and participated in many other
    pan-European research projects. Over
    the past decade, five Dutch CCS projects
    have been cancelled, including two in the
    Rotterdam Port area. Meanwhile, there
    are new proposals for CCS projects,
    including the Porthos project at Rotterdam
    Port. Dutch companies and research
    institutions conducted various trials, e.g.,
    a CO2 capture testing campaign at
    a Tata Steel plant.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 31/39
    Country
    Geoengineering technologies addressed
    in national
    strategic plans
    The role of geoengineering
    technologies in national strategic plans
    (NECPs, NRRPs, NDCs, where available)
    Experience with the geoengineering
    technologies identified in the national
    strategic plans
    European Member States
    Poland CCS, CCU The Polish NECP (2019) points out that
    CCS technology is “recommended by the
    European Commission”, but adds that
    “however, CCS technologies have proved
    to be very difficult to apply widely”
    and that “a greater potential is seen in
    the development of carbon processing
    technologies”. The NECP also states that
    “it is not a foregone conclusion when
    these technologies will be commercially
    available, given that the last 10 years
    have not brought any significant progress,
    especially in terms of cost reduction”
    and “as no industrial installation of this
    type has yet been put into operation”.
    The NECP adds that “despite a wideranging research effort, it will be
    extremely difficult for CCS technologies
    to become commercially mature”.
    Polish research institutions and companies
    participated in about 20 pan-European
    research projects on CCS, CO2 capture
    technologies, CCUS and biochar. Polish
    coal seams and a marine site have been
    used as pilot sites for CO2 injections in
    pan-European research projects, e.g., the
    Barbara coal mine.
    Portugal – There is no reference to the use of geoengineering technologies in the European NDC, the Portuguese NECP (12/2019)
    and the Portuguese NRRP (04/2021).
    Portuguese research organisations and
    companies participated in pan-European
    research projects on CO2 capture, CCS
    and CCUS and led the pan-European research project COMET on CO2 transport
    and storage in the west Mediterranean.
    Romania CCUS The Romanian NRRP (05/2021) includes
    support for two gas-fired power plants
    with CO2 capture in Halanga and
    Constanta. The captured CO2
    is to be fed
    into greenhouses.
    There is no reference to the use of geoengineering technologies in the European NDC
    and the Romanian NECP (04/2020).
    Romanian research organisations
    participated in pan-European
    research projects on CO2 capture, CCS
    and CCUS. Plans for a CCS project have
    been cancelled.
    Slovakia CCS The Slovakian NECP (12/2019) proposes
    “projects to convert other suitable
    geological structures into underground
    gas storage facilities, respectively to use
    them in another way for energy-related
    purposes (CCS)”.
    Slovakian research organisations
    participated in pan-European
    research projects on CCS and CCUS.
    Slovenia CCS The Slovenian NECP (02/2020) states
    that “there are possibilities for CCS at
    existing power sites and also in energyintensive industry” in Slovenia and
    assumes that CCS technologies will only
    become commercially interesting, “but
    this is not expected before 2040”, if
    emission allowance prices rise significantly
    and electricity demand is not replaced by
    renewable, nuclear, or gas-fired power
    plants. The NECP stresses that “under the
    current legislation […], the injection and
    storage of carbon dioxide is prohibited in
    Slovenia”.
    Slovenian research organisations and
    companies participated in pan-European research projects on CCS, biochar
    and CCUS. A Slovenian coal mine was
    used as a test site for CO2 injections.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 32/39
    Country
    Geoengineering technologies addressed
    in national
    strategic plans
    The role of geoengineering
    technologies in national strategic
    plans (NECPs, NRRPs, NDCs,
    where available)
    Experience with the geoengineering
    technologies identified in the national
    strategic plans
    European Member States
    Spain CCS The Spanish NECP (01/2020)
    proposes “the integration of
    CO2 capture technologies to reduce
    emissions”. It suggests “promoting
    the construction of CO2 capture and
    geological storage projects”, through
    the NER 300 programme.
    Spanish research institutions and companies
    coordinated more than five pan-European
    projects on CCS, CCUS and CO2 capture
    technologies and participated in further
    pan-European research projects. Spanish
    industrial and research sites served as
    tests sites for CCS and CCUS trials, e.g.,
    the Compostilla power station and the
    IMDEA Energy Institute.
    Sweden CCS The Swedish NECP (01/2020)
    states that “capture and storage of
    carbon dioxide of fossil origin must
    be included in the measures” to
    enable Sweden to achieve its emission
    targets and adds that “CCS must be
    demonstrated on a large scale”.
    A “three-year demonstration project
    for carbon capture and storage (CCS)
    at the Preem refinery in Lysekil” will
    investigate “the possibility of setting
    up a full-scale CCS plant”.
    Swedish research institutions and companies
    coordinated pan-European projects on
    CCS, CCUS and CO2 capture technologies
    and participated in further pan-European
    research projects.
    Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the UK
    Iceland CCS, DAC The Icelandic NDC (02/2021) proposes to increase “carbon removals
    from the atmosphere”, including by
    “carbon capture and mineralization
    in rock formations (Carbfix)”.
    Reykjavik Energy led the pan-European
    research projects CarbFix and GECO and
    conducted CO2
    -injection trials, e.g., at the
    Húsmúli site. The projects combine DAC
    and CCS and there are plans to trial the
    approach on a larger-scale.
    Norway CCS The Norwegian NDC (02/2020)
    states that “economic measures like
    CO2
  • taxes and emission trading are
    central to Norwegian climate policy”.
    The NDC proposes to support the “development and adoption of low emissions technologies, including carbon
    capture and storage technologies”.
    Norwegian research institutions and industry
    coordinated more than 15 pan-European
    research projects on CCS, CCUS and
    CO2 capture technologies and have carried out
    several CCS projects, including Sleipner and
    Snøhvit. A new CCS project is in preparation.
    Switzerland – There is no reference to the use of
    geoengineering technologies in the
    Swiss NDC.
    The ETH Zürich participated in pan-European
    research projects on geoengineering,
    e.g., on BECCS and CO2 storage, and
    spin-offs of the ETH developed DAC and
    CCUS technology.
    The UK CCU (?) The British NDC (12/2020) states
    that “the Welsh Government is
    investing in people to develop the
    skills needed for a low-carbon,
    circular economy” and adds that
    Northern Ireland plans a “transition
    to a low-carbon circular economy”.
    Beyond this, there is no evidence
    that geoengineering technologies
    could play a role in the UK. However,
    this contrasts with the scale of
    public funding programmes for
    geoengineering.
    UK research institutions and industry have
    coordinated more than 20 pan-European and
    EU-funded research projects on CCUS, CCS
    and CO2 capture technologies, and have participated in many further pan-European research
    projects on geoengineering. Nationally, there are
    numerous further programmes and centres in
    the UK to research, promote and establish geoengineering, including the UK Carbon Capture
    and Storage Research Centre, the UK CCS Infrastructure Fund, and the Centre of Climate
    Repair. One of the most extensive publicly funded
    programmes is the UK Greenhouse Gas Removal
    Programme. Although more than 10 CCS projects have already failed in the UK, major
    CCS projects are in the pipeline, supported by
    public funds, including the Acorn CCS project
    and HyNet North West project.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 33/39
    Annex 4 (chapter 6): European lobby groups working on the issue of geoengineering
    Lobby
    group
    Founded
    in
    Head
    office
    Advocates
    for the
    following GE
    technologies
    Goals Members/
    funding Further information
    BASRECCS 2014/15 various:
    http://
    basrec.
    net/basrec-members/
    CCS in the
    Baltic Sea
    countries
    Initiated by BASREC (Baltic
    Sea Region Energy Cooperation).
    The networks’ goal is to support
    the exploration and gradual
    implementation of CCS in the
    Baltic Sea countries and to
    strengthen regional cooperation.
    Funding: Global
    CCS Institute,
    CCSP-Carbon
    Capture
    and Storage
    Program,
    Nordic Council
    of Ministers,
    Baltic Sea
    Region Energy
    Cooperation
    (BASREC)
    https://www.bcforum.
    net/, https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
    ggr/basreccs-baltic-searegion-network-for-ccs
    Carbon
    Drawdown
    Initiative
    Carbdown
    GmbH
    2020 Registered in
    Fürth,
    Germany
    BECCS,
    CCUS
    (synfuels)
    DAC,
    Enhanced
    weathering
    The corporation aims to ensure
    that projects in the following
    geoengineering fields are
    (further) developed: DAC,
    Enhanced weathering with
    olivine or serpentine, BECCS,
    and CO2
    -based synfuels. To
    achieve these goals, the company
    grants financial support to
    geoengineering companies. In
    addition, the corporation is
    involved in public and political
    work, e.g., as a founding member
    of the Negative Emissions
    Platform.
    Founded by
    Dirk Paessler
    and directed in
    cooperation with
    Ralf Steffens.
    Information on
    the funding is not
    available.
    https://www.carbon-drawdown.de/
    home-en, https://map.
    geoengineeringmonitor.
    org/other/carbon-drawdown-initiative-carbdown-gmbh
    Carbon
    Removal
    Advocacy
    Europe
    2020/21 Based
    in UK
    BECCS, DAC The group aims to “advocate
    for policy change to provide
    critical research and deployment
    incentives to scale up carbon
    removal; coordinate among
    funders, ENGOs, industry, and
    government to build a thriving
    European CDR ecosystem;
    engage with the public and
    community leaders to explore
    the benefits and potential
    risks of CDR and enable wellinformed decision making”. The
    organisation “already raised
    over £ 2,700,000 in funding
    commitments and built a network
    of partners and allies across
    Europe.”
    Funding &
    expert partners:
    Carbon180,
    Quadrature
    Climate
    Foundation,
    Climate
    Pathfinders
    Foundation,
    Grantham
    Environmental
    Trust, Oxford
    NetZero, Oxford
    University.
    https://cdradvocacy.
    org/?utm_medium=email&_
    hsmi=121470622&_
    hsenc=p2ANqtz-QiFOF_PrIz9VxpQtcRXGVd-wSAXpu8_zweSxYslIspPYG-R982IxGbr0PyRY28gpN6OU3tIWCD9BSK2xsL4XcfnvZhg&utm_content=121471195&utm
    source=hs_email
    Geoengineering in the European Union 34/39
    Lobby
    group
    Founded
    in
    Head
    office
    Advocates
    for the
    following GE
    technologies
    Goals Members/
    funding Further information
    CCUS
    Projects
    Network
    Formed as
    “European
    CCS
    Demonstration Project
    Network”
    in 2009;
    renamed in
    2018.
    Not available
    CCS, CCUS The network aims to support industrial projects
    related to CCS and CCUS,
    e.g., by sharing information
    and learning from each
    other. The networks secretariat “works closely with
    the European Commission
    and the Network’s Steering
    Committee to ensure that
    members’ needs and interests are provided for while
    supporting the EU’s climate
    action ambitions”.
    The European Union
    has provided financial
    support to the network
    through an FP7 project and appears to
    continue its financial
    support. In the early
    years, the network was
    managed by the Australian-based Global
    CCS Institute. Today
    the network is managed by its members,
    which include SINTEF,
    TNO, Gassnova, Tata
    Steel, Drax, Port of
    Rotterdam, CarbFix,
    Leilac,… (https://www.
    ccusnetwork.eu/network-members)
    https://www.ccusnetwork.eu/about-network, FP7-project:
    https://cordis.
    europa.eu/project/
    id/296013, https://
    map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/other/
    ccus-projects-network
    CCUS –
    UK Action
    Plan &
    CCUS
    Advisory
    Group
    Since 2018,
    advisory
    group since
    2019.
    UK
    ministry
    for
    Energy
    and Clean
    Growth
    CCUS The UK Ministry for
    Energy and Clean Growth
    launched the “UK Action
    Plan” for CCUS. In 2019,
    the Ministry announced
    the formation of a CCUS
    Advisory Group, to help
    deliver the CCUS action
    plan. The Group consists of
    experts in industry, finance,
    and policy and includes
    representatives from Shell,
    BP, Tata Steel, Drax, and
    National Grid.
    The CCUS Advisory
    Group received £ 1 M
    of funding from the
    UK Government and
    industry.
    https://www.gov.
    uk/government/
    publications/the-ukcarbon-capture-usage-and-storage-ccusdeployment-pathway-an-action-plan,
    https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
    other/ccus-uk-actionplan
    Centre for
    Climate
    Repair at
    Cambridge
    (CCRC)
    Launched in
    2019
    Cambridge
    University, UK
    DAC, Ocean
    fertilization,
    Marine cloud
    brightening,
    Enhanced
    freezing
    The CCRC states the following goals: to reduce
    greenhouse gas emissions,
    remove greenhouse gases
    from the atmosphere and
    restore broken climate
    systems. In order to reach
    these goals, the centre
    looks into geoengineering
    technologies such as DAC,
    Ocean fertilization, Marine
    cloud brightening or Enhanced freezing. In June
    2021, the CCRC founded
    the Climate Crisis Advisory
    Group (CCAG). The CCAG
    aims to advice the public,
    governments and financial
    institutions.
    Launched by Cambridge University.
    £ 2.1 million gift
    from Jamie Arnell in
    May 2021.
    https://www.climaterepair.eng.cam.
    ac.uk/, https://map.
    geoengineeringmonitor.org/other/centrefor-climate-repair-atcambridge-(ccrc)
    Geoengineering in the European Union 35/39
    Lobby
    group
    Founded
    in
    Head
    office
    Advocates
    for the
    following GE
    technologies
    Goals Members/
    funding
    Further
    information
    Coalition
    for
    Negative
    Emissions
    2020 Based in
    the UK
    BECCS,
    Biochar,
    DACCS,
    Enhanced
    weathering
    “The Coalition for
    Negative Emissions
    has the expertise,
    experience and skill
    to deliver negative
    emissions on a global
    scale. We are calling
    on those that can
    support us to do so.”
    Drax, Velocys, Carbon
    Engineering, Carbon Removal
    Centre, CBI, Carbon Capture
    and Storage Association,
    Climeworks, Energy U.K.,
    Heathrow, International
    Airlines Group, U.K. National
    Farmers Union,…(https://
    coalitionfornegativeemissions.
    org/who-we-are/)
    https://coalitionfornegativeemissions.
    org/who-we-are/,
    http://biomassmagazine.com/
    articles/17440/
    drax-velocys-help-launch-coalition-for-negative-emissions
    CO2
    GeoNet EUfunded
    project:
    2004.
    Association:
    2008.
    Project:
    Natural
    Environment
    Research
    Council,
    UK. Today,
    the association is
    based in
    Orléans
    Cedex,
    France.
    CCS, geological storage
    of CO2
    “CO2
    GeoNet is the
    European scientific
    body on CO2
    geological
    storage.” Among the
    ambitions: “Be the
    preferred source of
    impartial scientific and
    technical information
    and advice for the
    European Union,
    industry, regulators,
    the general public
    and other CCS
    stakeholders”.
    The association started as a
    pan-European FP6 research
    initiative, funded with € 6
    million (total budget: €9.18
    million). The association
    currently comprises 27
    research institutes from 21
    European countries, among
    them ETH Zürich, SINTEF,
    TNO, Helmholtz Centre
    Potsdam, Imperial College
    London, IFPEN,…
    (http://www.co2geonet.com/
    about-us/)
    http://www.co2geonet.com/aboutus/, https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.
    org/other/co2geonet-network
    ECCSELRICO
    network
    2015 Established by
    the EU,
    registered
    in Norway,
    at the
    Norwegian
    University
    of Science
    and Technology
    (NTNU),
    Trondheim,
    Norway.
    CCS, CCUS ECCSEL “is the
    European Research
    Infrastructure for CO2
    Capture, Utilisation,
    Transport and Storage
    (CCUS). Our vision
    is to enable low to
    zero CO2
    emissions
    from industry and
    power generation
    to combat climate
    change. Our aim is
    to enhance European
    science, technology
    development,
    innovation and
    education in the field
    of CCUS.” (ECCEL
    = European Carbon
    Dioxide Capture and
    Storage Laboratory
    Infrastructure, ERIC
    = European Research
    Infrastructure
    Consortium)
    Established with EU funding
    (€3.25 million, FP8-H2020).
    Five member countries:
    France, Norway, Italy, the
    Netherlands, UK.
    Among the members: TNO,
    IFPEN, CNRS, EDF, TOTAL,
    SINTEF. Members: https://
    www.eccsel.org/about-eccsel/
    eccsel-highlights/
    https://www.eccsel.
    org/, https://map.
    geoengineeringmonitor.org/other/
    eccsel-rico-network
    Geoengineering in the European Union 36/39
    Lobby
    group
    Founded
    in
    Head
    office
    Advocates
    for the
    following GE
    technologies
    Goals Members/
    funding
    Further
    information
    Eurogas ~30
    years old
    Brussels,
    Belgium
    CCS,
    low-carbon
    gas
    “Eurogas engages
    actively with its stakeholders to discuss and
    develop EU policy and
    legislation related to
    energy. To this end
    the member companies and associations
    join forces in expert
    committees and task
    forces to bring strong
    arguments and constructive proposals to
    the table.” The organisation is lobbying for
    “decarbonised gas and
    CCS technologies”.
    Among the members: EON,
    ENI, Equinor, Shell, Uniper,…
    (https://eurogas.org/about-eurogas/our-members/)
    https://eurogas.org/
    European
    Biochar
    Industry
    Consortium
    (EBI)
    2019 Freiburg
    im
    Breisgau,
    Germany
    Biochar The organisation aims
    to promote the use of
    biochar in Europe,
    to employ biochar to
    fight climate change,
    and “support/ initiate
    adaptation of legal
    regulations regarding
    production and usage
    of biochar”.
    Member organisations, please
    see: https://www.biochar-industry.com/about/
    https://www.biochar-industry.com/
    about/, https://map.
    geoengineeringmonitor.org/ggr/european-biochar-industry-consortium-(ebi)
    European
    Clean
    Hydrogen
    Alliance
    (ECH2A)
    March
    2020
    Not
    available
    Low-carbon
    hydrogen,
    based on CCS
    and pyrolysis
    (biochar)
    “The European Clean
    Hydrogen Alliance
    aims at an ambitious
    deployment of hydrogen technologies by
    2030, bringing together renewable and
    low-carbon hydrogen
    production, demand
    in industry, mobility
    and other sectors, and
    hydrogen transmission
    and distribution. With
    the alliance, the EU
    wants to build its global leadership in this
    domain, to support the
    EU’s commitment to
    reach carbon neutrality
    by 2050.”
    Initiated by the European
    Union, the European Clean
    Hydrogen Alliance brings
    together industry, national
    and local public authorities,
    civil society and other stakeholders. Please see: https://
    ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46392, among the
    members are: ArcelorMittal,
    Alstom, BP Europa, RWE,
    Schlumberger, Shell, Siemens,
    SINTEF, Uniper, Vattenfall.
    https://www.ech2a.
    eu/, https://ec.europa.eu/growth/
    industry/policy/
    european-clean-hydrogen-alliance_en,
    https://ec.europa.
    eu/docsroom/documents/46392
    European
    Zero
    Emissions
    Technology
    &
    Innovation
    Platform
    Not
    available
    Brussels,
    Belgium
    CCS, CCUS “ZEP is the technical
    adviser to the EU
    Commission on the
    deployment of CCS
    and CCU”
    Among the members: BP, ENI,
    Equinor, ExxonMobil, Port of
    Rotterdam, Shell, SINTEF,
    Northern Lights, TNO, Total,
    Bellona Foundation (https://zeroemissionsplatform.eu/aboutzep/members/)
    https://zeroemissionsplatform.
    eu/about-zep/
    zep-structure/
    Geoengineering in the European Union 37/39
    Lobby
    group
    Founded
    in
    Head
    office
    Advocates
    for the
    following GE
    technologies
    Goals Members/
    funding
    Further
    information
    GIS-Gas Infrastructure
    Europe
    Not
    available
    Brussels,
    Belgium
    “Low carbon
    hydrogen”
    with CCS
    Among the objectives:
    “development of the
    hydrogen economy
    with the existing gas
    infrastructure and via
    the development of
    innovative project”,
    “low-carbon gases”.
    “GIE closely collaborates with many
    stakeholders in the
    community to ensure
    a responsible and sustainable future for the
    European infrastructure industry, and to
    increase our positive
    contributions.”
    “67 member companies from
    27 countries, encompassing
    operators of gas infrastructures across Europe” https://
    www.gie.eu/dna/members/
    https://www.gie.eu/
    GasNaturally
    Not
    available
    Not
    available
    “Low carbon
    hydrogen”
    with CCS
    GasNaturally is a
    partnership of eight
    associations from
    across the whole
    gas value chain. The
    organisation advocates
    for “clean hydrogen
    and CCS for Europe”
    and for large-scale
    deployment of CCS in
    Europe.
    Members: Eurogas, European
    Gas Research Group, Gas
    Infrastructure Europe (GIE),
    International Association of
    Oil and Gas Producers
    (IOGP),International Gas
    Union (IGU), Liquid Gas
    Europe, Marcogaz, NGVA
    Europe
    https://gasnaturally.
    eu/about-gas/cleanhydrogen-and-ccsfor-europe/
    Hydrogen
    Council
    2017 Brussels,
    Belgium
    “Low carbon
    hydrogen”
    with CCS
    Aims to supply
    low-carbon hydrogen
    at scale. According to
    the Hydrogen Council
    “low-carbon hydrogen
    supply at scale is economically and environmentally feasible”.
    Lobbying platform with ~100
    industry members, among
    them AirLiquide, ALSTOM,
    BP, Equinor, Linde, Microsoft,
    Shell, Siemens, Total,
    ThyssenKrupp, Uniper,…
    https://hydrogencouncil.com/en/
    Hydrogen
    Europe
    Since
    2014,
    possibly
    longer
    Brussels,
    Belgium
    “Low carbon
    hydrogen”
    with CCS
    Hydrogen Europe
    presents the interests
    of “the industry and
    national association
    members covering the
    entire hydrogen value
    chain.” At the same
    time, it partners with
    the European Commission as a research
    body, in the European
    Joint Undertaking on
    Hydrogen. Hydrogen
    Europe members
    contributed to the
    research activities.
    Lobbying platform with nearly
    200 industry members.
    https://www.hydrogeneurope.eu/
    Geoengineering in the European Union 38/39
    Lobby
    group
    Founded
    in
    Head
    office
    Advocates
    for the
    following GE
    technologies
    Goals Members/
    funding
    Further
    information
    Negative
    Emissions
    Platform
    (NEP)
    2020 Registered
    in
    Brussels,
    as a
    Belgian
    company
    BECCS,
    Biochar,
    CCUS (fuels,
    chemicals,
    materials),
    DAC/DACCS,
    Enhanced
    weathering
    on land and
    in the oceans
    NEP aims to draw
    the attention of policy
    makers and the public
    to the aforementioned
    geoengineering approaches
    and calls for further
    research to investigate the
    potential, costs and side
    effects of the
    approaches as well as
    (financial) incentives
    for so-called “negative
    emissions”.
    Among the members:
    Climeworks, Carbon
    Drawdown Initiative,
    Carbon Engineering,
    Carbyon, Global
    Thermostat, Fieldcode, Air
    Capture, CarbonFuture,
    Drax, Carbfix, Project
    Vesta, European Biochar
    Industry, ClimatePartners,
    Stockholm exergi, 44.01,
    Repair CO2
    capture,…
    https://www.negative-emissions.org/,
    https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
    other/negative-emissions-platform
    OHB’s geoengineering
    network
    2021 OHB SE,
    Bremen,
    Germany
    “Space-based
    geoengineering”
    “OHB System AG, a
    subsidiary of the German
    space and technology
    group OHB SE, has joined
    forces with eight research
    institutes from five different countries to establish
    a competence network
    on the subject of spacebased geoengineering.”
    “The research areas that
    are covered range from
    aerospace engineering,
    atmospheric research and
    climate modelling to communication sciences and
    ethics. In addition to building up sound knowledge on
    climate change and geoengineering, the objectives of
    the consortium also include
    the exchange and open discussion with other experts,
    political decision-makers
    and the general public.”
    “Participating institutions
    include the University
    of Bremen (Center of
    Applied Space Technology
    and Microgravity
    (ZARM) and Institute for
    Theoretical Philosophy),
    the Alfred Wegener
    Institute Bremerhaven
    (Paleoclimate Dynamics),
    Cranfield University
    (Astrodynamics and
    Mission Design), TU Delft,
    the University of Patras
    (Applied Mechanics
    Laboratory), NHL
    Stenden (Communications
    and Multimedia Design),
    the University of Utrecht
    (Institute of Marine and
    Atmospheric Research)
    and the University of
    Applied Sciences Wiener
    Neustadt (Aerospace
    Engineering).”
    https://www.ohb.
    de/en/news/2021/
    ohb-establishes-geoengineering-network
    Scottish
    Carbon
    Capture
    & Storage
    (SCCS)
    partnership
    2005 Edinburgh,
    UK
    CCS, CCUS “We carry out strategic
    and innovative research
    across the full CCS
    chain, including CO2
    capture engineering,
    transportation, storage,
    utilisation and impact
    analyses. Our researchers
    are engaged in economic,
    legal and regulatory
    studies and consultation
    work.” “Enhancement
    and promotion of
    SCCS research and
    development capacity
    and knowledge exchange
    to a global audience of
    researchers, industry and
    governments.”
    Funded by the Scottish
    Funding Council (SFC),
    the European Regional Development Fund
    (ERDF), Scottish Government. Some members
    of the advisory board are
    affiliated with TOTAL UK
    and Shell.
    https://sccs.org.uk/,
    https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
    other/scottish-carbon-capture-storage-(sccs)
    Imprint
    Editor: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung European Union, Rue du Luxembourg 47-51,
    BE-1050 Brussels
    Lisa Tostado, Head of International Climate, Trade and Agricultural Policy Programme
    Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung European Union, Brussels
    E Lisa.Tostado@eu.boell.org
    Martin Keim, Head of the European Energy Transition Programme
    Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung European Union, Brussels
    E Martin.Keim@eu.boell.org
    Place of publication: https://eu.boell.org/
    Release date: November 2021
    Layout: Micheline Gutman, Muriel sprl
    Cover picture: © Malte Reimold – pixabay.com
    License: Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0),
    https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
    The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect
    the views of the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung.

Legg igjen en kommentar