Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Carbon Capture and Storage from the Perspective of International Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2011

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 2))

Abstract

It is generally accepted that the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere should be reduced to limit its adverse effects on the earth’s climate. Alongside strategies to reduce CO2 emissions and improve the energy efficiency of industrial processes, technological approaches to climate change mitigation such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) are increasingly subject to debate. CCS represents one option in a larger portfolio of mitigation strategies for climate change. It consists of three distinct technological stages: separation, capture, and storage (also referred to as sequestration). CO2 released by combustion processes in power plants is separated from other emissions and captured. After transport to a suitable storage location, CO2 is isolated for extended periods to prevent its release into the atmosphere. The increasing relevance of CCS can be attributed to the fact that scientists suspect the existence of a huge number of geological formations on land and under the oceans with characteristics suitable for the storage, or geosequestration, of CO2.

The authors thank Catherine Houghton for valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    According to an estimation by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), up to 99% of the CO2 is supposed to remain in the reservoir for more than 1,000 years; see IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage, 2005, available at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports_carbon_dioxide.htm, Technical Summary, Section 5, p. 34.

  2. 2.

    See IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage, 2005, available at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports_carbon_dioxide.htm, Chapter 5, para. 5.2.

  3. 3.

    IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage, 2005, available at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports_carbon_dioxide.htm, Summary for Policymakers, Section 4, p. 4.

  4. 4.

    Without prejudice to its position in international negotiations, the EU made a firm independent commitment to achieve at least a 20% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 compared with the level in 1990. Ultimately, a reduction of emissions by 60–80% by 2050 compared with the level in 1990 is intended. See Council Document 7224/07 of 9 March 2007, Presidency Conclusions of the Council of the European Union, paras. 30, 32.

  5. 5.

    2303 UNTS 148.

  6. 6.

    1771 UNTS 107.

  7. 7.

    OECD/IEA, Legal Aspects of Storing CO 2 , 2005, p. 21.

  8. 8.

    Trail Smelter Arbitration, USA v. Canada, RIAA III, pp. 1905, 1938 (1965); ICJ Advisory Opinion, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ Reports 1996, pp. 226 et seq. (241 et seq.); see also Principle 2 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 31 ILM 874 (1992) and Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, 11 ILM 1416 (1972).

  9. 9.

    Note that with regard to the Draft Articles on the Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, the International Law Commission (ILC) decided not to specify the activities encompassed by these provisions since “[a]ny such list of activities is likely to be under inclusion and could become quickly dated from time to time in the light of fast evolving technology”, YBILC 2001 II/2, pp. 149 et seq. (para. 4).

  10. 10.

    YBILC 2001 II/2, pp. 146 et seq.

  11. 11.

    Birnie/Boyle/Redgwell, International Law and the Environment, (3rd ed.) 2009, p. 141.

  12. 12.

    1833 UNTS 3.

  13. 13.

    Marr, The Precautionary Principle in the Law of the Sea, 2003, p. 52; see also Proelss, Meeresschutz im Völker- und Europarecht, 2004, pp. 81–84.

  14. 14.

    IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage, 2005, cf. http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm, Summary for Policymakers, Section 22, pp. 12 et seq.

  15. 15.

    Güssow/Proelss/Oschlies/Rehdanz/Rickels, Ocean Iron Fertilization: Why Further Research is Needed, Marine Policy 34 (2010), pp. 911 et seq. (914 et seq.); see also Proelss/Krivickaite, Marine Biodiversity and Climate Change, CCLR (2009) 4, pp. 437 et seq. (444 et seq.); OECD/IEA, Legal Aspects of Storing CO 2 , 2005, pp. 38, 41.

  16. 16.

    Concerning ocean iron fertilization as a comparable mitigation strategy see Freestone/Rayfuse, Ocean Iron Fertilization and International Law, MEPS 364 (2008), pp. 227 (232).

  17. 17.

    See Schlacke, Klimaschutz durch CO2-Speicherung im Meeresboden – völkerrechtliche Anforderungen und europarechtliche Herausforderungen, EurUP 2007, pp. 87 et seq. (90 et seq.).

  18. 18.

    Contra Purdy, Geological Carbon Dioxide Storage and the Law, in: Shackley/Gough (eds.), Carbon Capture and its Storage, 2006, pp. 87 et seq. (100), who argues that “the reference to the seabed and subsoil and their natural resources could be construed to cover things such as CO2 storage.”

  19. 19.

    See Proelß, Marine Genetic Resources under UNCLOS and the CBD, GYIL 51 (2008), pp. 417 et seq. (430).

  20. 20.

    See Purdy, Geological Carbon Dioxide Storage and the Law, in: Shackley/Gough (eds.), Carbon Capture and its Storage, 2006, pp. 87 et seq. (100 et seq.); Jenisch, Klimawandel und Seerecht, NuR 2008, pp. 227 et seq. (230), who correctly states that CCS activities cannot be regarded as “activities in the area” in terms of Art. 1(1) No. 3 UNCLOS, which would give rise to the jurisdiction of the International Seabed Authority.

  21. 21.

    11 ILM 1294 (1972).

  22. 22.

    36 ILM 7 (1997).

  23. 23.

    It would not be uncontroversial to derive from Art. 210(6) UNCLOS that all (160) contracting parties to UNCLOS are automatically bound by the LC (86 contracting parties) and the LP (37 contracting parties) irrespective of a corresponding accession. Supporting this position is IMO Doc LEG/MISC/3/Rev.1 of 6 January 2003, Implications of the Entry into Force of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for the International Maritime Organization, p. 48. – Certainly the existence of global rules can be more easily affirmed in the case of the LC than the LP, which has less than half the number of signatories. It has been claimed that no state other than the member states of the LC and LP, representing about 72% of world tonnage, currently engages in dumping at sea in any significant form. If this is true, the assumption that the LC and LP are binding through an intermediary function of Art. 210(6) UNCLOS is defensible.

  24. 24.

    Rayfuse/Lawrence/Gjerde, Ocean Iron Fertilisation and Climate change: The Need to Regulate Emerging High Seas Uses, IJMCL 23 (2008), pp. 297 et seq. (312); see also OSPAR 04/2371.E, Annex 12, Report from the Group of Jurists and Linguists on Placement of Carbon Dioxide in the OSPAR Maritime Area, 2004, para. 20.

  25. 25.

    Purdy/Macrory, Geological Carbon Sequestration: Critical Legal Issues, Tyndell Centre Working Paper No. 45, 2003, p. 32. This might be assessed differently for scientific experiments studying CCS.

  26. 26.

    Annex 1, para. 1.8 LP. For a discussion of the legal situation under the LC see Friedrich, Carbon Capture and Storage: A New Challenge for International Environmental Law, ZaöRV 67 (2007), pp. 211 et seq. (221).

  27. 27.

    See Resolution LP.1(1) of 2 November 2006, Amendment to Include CO2 Sequestration in Sub-seabed Geological Formations in Annex 1 to the London Protocol.

  28. 28.

    Annex 1, para. 4 LP.

  29. 29.

    LP 1/6/2 of 8 September 2006, CO2 Sequestration in Sub-Seabed Geological Formations: Consideration of Proposals to Amend Annex 1 to the London Protocol, Composition of CO2 Streams for Sequestration in Sub-seabed Geological Formations: the Feasibility and Necessity for a Quantitative Limit on Purity, para. 12.

  30. 30.

    Stoll/Lehmann, CO 2 -Abscheidung und Speicherung im Meeresgrund, 2008, p. 118.

  31. 31.

    LC 28/15, Report of the Twenty-Eighth Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972 and First Meeting of Contracting Parties to the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972, paras. 82 et seq.

  32. 32.

    LC 31/5/1 of 23 April 2009, CO2 Sequestration in Sub-seabed Geological Formations: CO2 Sequestration in Transboundary Sub-seabed Geological Formations.

  33. 33.

    Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, 22 September 1992, 32 ILM 1069 (1993).

  34. 34.

    Art. 1 (a) OSPAR Convention; see also OSPAR 04/2371.E, Annex 12, Report from the Group of Jurists and Linguists on Placement of Carbon Dioxide in the OSPAR Maritime Area, 2004, para. 11.

  35. 35.

    See Birnie/Boyle/Redgwell, International Law and the Environment, (3rd ed.) 2009, p. 394.

  36. 36.

    Note that Annex III only prohibits the placement from an offshore installation of CO2 not arising from an offshore source; see OSPAR 04/2371.E, Annex 12, Report from the Group of Jurists and Linguists on Placement of Carbon Dioxide in the OSPAR Maritime Area, 2004, para. 27.

  37. 37.

    Art. 3(2) (f) iv) Annex II and Art. 3(3) (d) Annex III OSPAR Convention.

  38. 38.

    OSPAR 07/24/1-E, Annex 6, Decision 2007/2 on the Storage of Carbon Dioxide Streams in Geological Formations, Ref. §2.10c.

  39. 39.

    OSPAR 07/24/1-E, Annex 7, OSPAR Guidelines for Risk Assessment and Management of Storage of CO2 Streams in Geological Formations, Ref. §2.10d.

  40. 40.

    OSPAR 07/24/1-E, Annex 5, Decision 2007/1 to Prohibit the Storage of Carbon Dioxide Streams in the Water Column or on the Sea-bed, Ref. §2.9b.

  41. 41.

    Art. 3(3), (4) UNFCCC.

  42. 42.

    See also Dietrich, CO 2 -Abscheidung und Ablagerung im deutschen und europäischen Energieumweltrecht, 2007, p. 240.

  43. 43.

    Art. 1(8) UNFCCC.

  44. 44.

    Art. 1(9) UNFCCC.

  45. 45.

    Art. 3(3) and (4) KP.

  46. 46.

    Friedrich, Carbon Capture and Storage: A New Challenge for International Environmental Law, ZaöRV 67 (2007), pp. 211 et seq. (213); Johnston/Parmentier/Krueger, Ocean Disposal/Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide from Fossil Fuel Production and Use: An Overview of Rationale, Techniques and Implications, Greenpeace Research Laboratories, Technical Note 01/99, p. 42.

  47. 47.

    FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1 of 21 January 2002, Decisions 2/CP.7 to 14/CP.7.

  48. 48.

    FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1 of 21 January 2002, p. 59, Decision 11/CP.7, Land use, land-use change and forestry, Annex: Definitions, modalities, rules and guidelines relating to land use, land-use change and forestry activities under the Kyoto Protocol, para. 6.

  49. 49.

    Hohmuth, CO 2 -Abscheidung und Speicherung im Meeresgrund, 2008, p. 219.

  50. 50.

    Similarly Bode/Jung, Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS) – Liability for Non-permanence under the UNFCCC, HWWA Discussion Paper No. 325, p. 6; Dietrich, CO 2 -Abscheidung und Ablagerung im deutschen und europäischen Energieumweltrecht, 2007, p. 241.

  51. 51.

    Art. 1(4) UNFCCC.

  52. 52.

    Kessler/von Eysmondt/Merten, Nutzung von CO2 aus Rauchgasen für chemische Synthesen, Chem.-Ing.-Tech. 64 (1992), pp. 1075 et seq. (1076).

  53. 53.

    Much, Legal Aspects of Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies, in: Rodi (ed.), Between Theory and Practice: Putting Climate Policy to Work, 2008, pp. 123 et seq. (125); Supersberger/Esken/Fischedick/Schüwer, Carbon Capture and Storage – Solution to Climate Change, KyotoPlus Paper, 2006, p. 4.

  54. 54.

    Note that Annex A to the KP enumerates a number of source categories. In the sector “energy” it refers to fuel combustion by energy industries and industrial processes, thus power plants.

  55. 55.

    IPCC, Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 2006, Volume 2, Chapter 5. Table 5.1 shows the categories in which those emissions are reported.

  56. 56.

    See Burgi, Die Rechtsstellung der Unternehmen im Emissionshandelssystem, NJW 2003, pp. 2486 et seq. (2487).

  57. 57.

    Directive 2003/87/EC of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, OJ 2003 L 275/32.

  58. 58.

    This principle was established in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 2: Energy, Chapter 5, para. 5.3.

  59. 59.

    Art. 24 EU ETS Directive.

  60. 60.

    Directive 2009/29/EC of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system of the Community, Annex 1, OJ 2009 L 140/63.

  61. 61.

    Art. 12(3a) EU ETS Directive.

  62. 62.

    Art. 10a(1) EU ETS Directive.

  63. 63.

    Art. 12(2) KP.

  64. 64.

    FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.1 of 30 March 2006, pp. 8 et seq., Decision 3/CMP.1 of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol on its first session of 28 November to 10 December 2005.

  65. 65.

    Directive 2004/101/EC of 27 October 2004 amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, in respect of the Kyoto Protocol’s project mechanisms, OJ 2004 L 338/18.

  66. 66.

    Until December 2012 emission reduction units may be issued if an equal number of allowances is cancelled by the operator of that installation, Art. 11b(3), (4) EU ETS Directive.

  67. 67.

    See Philibert/Ellis/Podkanski, Carbon Capture and Storage in the CDM, 2007, p. 12.

  68. 68.

    Hohmuth, CO 2 -Abscheidung und Speicherung im Meeresgrund, 2008, p. 244.

  69. 69.

    The positions ranged from either stressing the importance of fossil fuels for development and therefore regarding CCS as a modern perspective to use fossil fuels, or stressing environmental and technical difficulties and uncertainties; see FCCC/KP/CMP/2006/3, Report on the workshop on carbon dioxide capture and storage as clean development mechanism project activities, para. 30; FCCC/KP/CMP/2006/MISC.2 of 15 September 2006, Consideration of carbon capture and storage as clean development mechanism project activities.

  70. 70.

    FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2 of 21 January 2002, p. 20, Decision 17/CP.7 Modalities and procedures for a clean development mechanism as defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol.

  71. 71.

    Similarly UNFCCC/CCNUCC, Executive Board 50, Draft Annex 1, Implications of the Inclusion of Geological Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage as CDM Project Activities, p. 50.

  72. 72.

    See UNFCCC, Executive Board 39, Annex 10, Tool for the Demonstration and Assessment of Additionality, Version 5.2.

  73. 73.

    Council Document 7224/07 of 9 March 2007, Presidency Conclusions of the Council of the European Union, para. 32.

  74. 74.

    Directive 2009/31/EC of 23 April 2009 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide, OJ 2009 L 140/114.

  75. 75.

    Council Document 7224/07 of 9 March 2007, Annex I, European Council Action Plan (2007-2009), Energy Policy for Europe (EPE), para. 4.

  76. 76.

    CCS Directive, Recital 4.

  77. 77.

    Art. 2(1) CCS Directive.

  78. 78.

    Art. 2(4) CCS Directive.

  79. 79.

    Doppelhammer, Richtlinienvorschlag der Europäischen Kommission zur Speicherung von Kohlendioxid, ZUR 2008, pp. 250 et seq. (251).

  80. 80.

    Art. 3 No. 17 and 18 CCS Directive.

  81. 81.

    See Art. 31 et seq. CCS Directive.

  82. 82.

    Directive 2004/35/EC of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, OJ 2004 L 143/56.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Trier, D-54286, Trier, Germany

    Alexander Proelss

  2. CAU Kiel Walther-Schücking-Institut, Wstring 400, D-24098, Kiel, Germany

    Kerstin Güssow

Authors
  1. Alexander Proelss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kerstin Güssow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Proelss .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. LS für Staats- und Verwaltungsrecht,, Europarecht, Europäisches und, Universität Passau, Innstr. 39, Passau, 94032, Germany

    Christoph Herrmann

  2. , School of Law, University of Hamburg, Rothenbaumchaussee 33, Hamburg, 20148, Germany

    Jörg Philipp Terhechte

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Proelss, A., Güssow, K. (2011). Carbon Capture and Storage from the Perspective of International Law. In: Herrmann, C., Terhechte, J. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2011. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(), vol 2. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14432-5_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation