4,149
edits
🛢💸 The real deal about Carbon Pricing: Difference between revisions
🛢💸 The real deal about Carbon Pricing (view source)
Revision as of 13:29, 28 January 2021
, 28 January 2021→Carbon capture and storage is too slow
| Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
====Carbon capture and storage is too slow==== | ====Carbon capture and storage is too slow==== | ||
Politics doesn’t seem to be on the way to purely and simply force Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technics to be installed on all carbon intensive industries — from concrete plants to electric power plants burning fossil fuels. Still, <i>soft</i> mechanisms like ETS markets are supposed to play this role without interfering too much with “business as usual”. But economical models show that only a rise of the price for 1 tonne of CO2 above 50€ could possibly force those industries to invest in CCS. So, even if some see the rise of the EU ETS carbon price since 2018 with hope, it is nowhere near enough to cause any drop of GHG emissions worldwide.<ref>(FR) “Le Réveilleur” youtube channel: “La Capture et Séquestration de Carbone pour réduire nos émissions de CO2 - CARBONE#4” (2020) source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQlqQEhVi1M</ref> | |||
[[File:EU-ETS-carbon- | [[File:EU-ETS-carbon-price 2008-2021.jpeg|thumb|Thumbnailed image|EU ETS carbon price variations from its creation to January 2021<ref>See Ember carbon price viewer: https://ember-climate.org/data/carbon-price-viewer/</ref>.]] | ||
CCS have become a great way for fossil industries to reassure their investors, with a “fallback solution” in case if States eventually decided to adopt <i>hard</i> mechanisms to make emissions drop mandatory (be it fines or taxes). The problem is that most predictive models and commitments for a world below the +2°C rise of global temperatures, are calling massively on the use of CCS technics. Despite this, we are nowhere near the commitments that are necessary, in term of CCS development, to reach the Paris Agreement.<ref>“Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is recognised as being vital to least cost pathways for climate change mitigation, and in particular the negative emissions technologies (NETs) that are key to limiting warming to “well below” 2C. However, it has not yet been deployed on the scale understood to be required, owing to a variety of technical, economic and commercial challenges.” <i>Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward</i>, Energy Environ. Sci., 2018, 11, 1062. Published on Royal Society of Chemistry website, 2018. source: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2018/ee/c7ee02342a</ref> | CCS have become a great way for fossil industries to reassure their investors, with a “fallback solution” in case if States eventually decided to adopt <i>hard</i> mechanisms to make emissions drop mandatory (be it fines or taxes). The problem is that most predictive models and commitments for a world below the +2°C rise of global temperatures, are calling massively on the use of CCS technics. Despite this, we are nowhere near the commitments that are necessary, in term of CCS development, to reach the Paris Agreement.<ref>“Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is recognised as being vital to least cost pathways for climate change mitigation, and in particular the negative emissions technologies (NETs) that are key to limiting warming to “well below” 2C. However, it has not yet been deployed on the scale understood to be required, owing to a variety of technical, economic and commercial challenges.” <i>Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward</i>, Energy Environ. Sci., 2018, 11, 1062. Published on Royal Society of Chemistry website, 2018. source: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2018/ee/c7ee02342a</ref> | ||
== Notes == | == Notes == | ||