FUEL TO THE FIRE How Geoengineering Threatens to Entrench Fossil Fuels and Accelerate the Climate Crisis
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
FUEL TO THE FIRE How Geoengineering Threatens to Entrench Fossil Fuels and Accelerate the Climate Crisis
© 2019 Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
ABOUT CIEL
Founded in 1989, t h e Center fo r I nter nati o n a l E nv i ro n me nta l L aw (C I E L ) u s e s th e powe r
o f law to p ro tec t t h e enviro n m ent, p ro mo te h u ma n r i g hts, a n d e n s u re a j u s t a n d s u s ta i n-
a ble so c iet y. C IEL is d ed icated to a d voc a c y i n th e g l o ba l pu bl i c i nte re s t th ro u g h l e g a l
counsel, p o lic y resea rch , a n a lysis, ed u c ati o n , tra i n i n g, a n d c a pa c i t y bu i l d i n g.
Fuel to t h e Fire: How G eo en gin eer in g Th re ate n s to E ntre n c h Fo s s i l Fu e l s a n d Acce l e rate
t he Clim ate Cr isis by Th e Center fo r I nte r n ati o n a l E nv i ro n me nta l L aw i s l i ce n s e d u n d e r
a Creative Co m m o n s At t r ib u t io n 4.0 I nte r n ati o n a l L i ce n s e.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This rep o r t wa s a u t h o red by Ca r ro ll M u f fe tt a n d Ste ve n Fe i t, w i th a d d i ti o n a l i n pu t f ro m
Lili Fuh r a n d Lin d a S ch n eid er o f t h e H e i n r i c h B o e l l Fo u n d ati o n a n d a s s i s ta n ce f ro m E r i k a
Lenno n . Th is rep o r t a n d t h e b o d y o f re s e a rc h th at u n d e r l i e s i t we re ma d e po s s i bl e w i th
g e ne rou s su p p o r t fro m t h e Hein r ich B o e l l Fo u n d ati o n . E r ro r s a n d o mi s s i o n s a re th e s o l e
re spon sib ilit y o f C IEL.
This br i efin g n o te is fo r gen era l in fo r m atio n pur poses only. I t i s i ntend ed solely as a d i scussi on pi ece.
I t is no t a n d s h o ul d n o t be rel ied upo n a s l egal ad vi ce. Whi le ef for ts were mad e to ensure the accura-
c y o f th e in fo r m atio n co nta in ed in th is repor t and the above i nfor mati on i s f rom sources beli eved
rel ia b l e, th e in fo r m atio n is pres ented “a s is” and wi thout war ranti es, express or i mpli ed. I f there are
m ater ia l er ro r s w ith in th is br iefin g n o te, pl e ase ad vi se the author. R ecei pt of thi s br i ef i ng note i s not
intend e d to a n d do es n o t c reate a n atto r n ey- cli ent relati onshi p.
D E S I G N & L AY O U T : MARIE MEKOSH, CIEL
D A V I D G E R R AT T , N O N P R O F I T D E S I G N . C O M
O R I G I N A L T E M P L AT E :
COVER PHOTO: © S E A Q 6 8 V I A P I X A B AY
FUEL TO THE FIRE
HOW GEOENGINEERING THREATENS TO
ENTRENCH FOSSIL FUELS AND
ACCELERATE THE CLIMATE CRISIS
“It’s an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions... The fear factor that
people want to throw out there to say we just have to stop this, I do not accept.”
–REX TILLERSON, FORMER CEO, EXXONMOBIL AND
US SECRETARY OF STATE (2012)1
“When serious proposals for large-scale weather modification are advanced, as they
inevitably will be, the full resources of general-circulation knowledge and
computational meteorology must be brought to bear in predicting the results so as
to avoid the unhappy situation of the cure being worse than the ailment.”
–HENRY WEXLER, US WEATHER BUREAU (1958)2
FEBRUARY 2019
ii C E N T E R F O R I N T E R N AT I O N A L E N V I R O N M E N TA L L AW
Contents
1 Executive Summary
4 Introduction: Postcards from the Edge of a Climate Breakdown
6 Part 1
The Scientific Basis and Moral Imperative for Urgent Climate Action
9 Part 2
Geoengineering: Carbon Dioxide Removal, Solar Radiation Management, and Beyond
“...with Carbon Capture & Storage”: Why CCS is Vital to the Geoengineering Debate
Geoengineering May Entrench Fossil Fuel Interests
11 Part 3
Asphalt Fields and Black Carbon Skies: A Brief History of Fossil Fuels and Weather Modification
Early Oil Industry Interest in Weather Modification
The Importance of Acknowledging this Early Fossil Fuel Interest
11 Part 4
Carbon Dioxide Removal and Negative Emissions: The Pervasive Role of Carbon Capture, Use, and
Storage
Carbon In, Carbon Out: Captured Carbon and Enhanced Oil Recovery
How Carbon Dioxide Removal will “Save” the Coal Industry
Industry’s Pervasive Role in CCS Resarch and Policy
Carbon Dioxide Removal and Oil’s Plans for the Next Petroleum Century
Direct Air Capture: Turning Renewable Energy into New Carbon Emissions
Enhanced Weathering and Carbon Mineralization
Ocean Iron Fertilization and Alkalinization
31 Part 5
Bioenergy, BECCS, and the Real Cost of Carbon Accounting
Fossil Industry Investment in Biofuels and BECCS
34 Part 6
Paved with Good Intentions: The Danger and Distraction of Solar Radiation Modification
Burning Fossil Fuels Proved SRM is Possible—and Demonstrated Its Risks
Early Industry Interest in SRM and Stratospheric Aerosol Injection
Counting—and Not Counting—the Costs of SRM
This is a Test. But is it Only a Test?
Industry Influence in SRM
The New Climate Denial
47 Part 7
We Must and Can Stay Below 1.5oC without Geoengineering
Renewables are Eliminating the Rationale for Coal and Gas in Energy Generation
The Pace of Renewable Deployments Consistently Exceeds Official Forecasts
The Energy Revolution in the Transport Sector Extends Far Beyond Cars
Low-Tech, Win-Win Approaches to Climate Mitigation and Carbon Removal are Ready to Be Scaled Up
59 Part 8
Conclusions
61 Endnotes
FUEL TO THE FIRE iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AEI American Enterprise Institute IPCC United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change
BECCS Bioenergy with carbon capture and IPN International Policy Network
storage
BPC Bipartisan Policy Center LCOE Levelized cost of energy
CCC Copenhagen Consensus Center LNG Liquefied natural gas
CCS Carbon capture and storage MCB Marine cloud brightening
CCUS Carbon capture, use, and storage NAS National Academy of Sciences
CCW Coal combustion waste NCCC National Carbon Capture Center
CDR Carbon dioxide removal NORCE Norwegian Research Centre AS
CLARA Climate Land Ambition and Rights OGCI Oil and Gas Climate Initiative
Alliance
CO2 Carbon dioxide PV Photovoltaic
CSLF Carbon Sequestration Leadership SAI Stratospheric aerosol injection
Forum
DAC Direct air capture SCoPEx Stratospheric controlled perturbation
experiment
DACCCS Direct air capture with carbon capture SGRP Harvard University’s Solar
and storage Geoengineering Research Program
DOE US Department of Energy SO2 Sulfur dioxide
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute SR1.5 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change’s Special Report on 1.5 degrees
EOR Enhanced oil recovery SRM Solar radiation modification
EV Electric vehicle TCM Technology Centre Mongstad
GHG Greenhouse gas TJI Thomas Jefferson Institute
GW Gigawatt WCA World Coal Association
IEA International Energy Agency ZECA Zero Emission Coal Alliance
IEAGHG International Energy Agency’s
Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme
iv C E N T E R F O R I N T E R N AT I O N A L E N V I R O N M E N TA L L AW
© M I R I A M ’ S F O T O S / P I X A B AY
FUEL TO THE FIRE 1
Executive Summary
T
he present report investigates the early, ongoing, and often surprising role of the fossil fuel industry in developing,
patenting, and promoting key geoengineering technologies. It examines how the most heavily promoted strategies for
carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation modification depend on the continued production and combustion of carbon-
intensive fuels for their viability. It analyzes how the hypothetical promise of future geoengineering is already being used
by major fossil fuel producers to justify the continued production and use of oil, gas, and coal for decades to come. It exposes the
stark contrast between the emerging narrative that geoengineering is a morally necessary adjunct to dramatic climate action, and the
commercial arguments of key proponents that geoengineering is simply a way of avoiding or reducing the need for true systemic
change, even as converging science and technologies demonstrate that shift is both urgently needed and increasingly feasible. Finally,
it highlights the growing incoherence of advocating for reliance on speculative and risky geoengineering technologies in the face of
mounting evidence that addressing the climate crisis is less about technology than about political will.
Key Findings and Messages
The urgency of the climate crisis is being used Most direct air capture is only viable if it
to promote geoengineering. produces oil or liquid fuels.
• Models are increasingly including large-scale carbon • Most current or anticipated commercial applications
dioxide removal to account for overshooting (or sur- of direct air capture are for the production of liquid
passing 1.5 degrees of warming). (transport) fuels or enhanced oil recovery, both of
which produce significant CO2 emissions.
• Proponents are seeking increased funding and incen-
tives for research and development of carbon dioxide • Leading proponents of direct air capture explicitly
removal technologies. market the process as a way to preserve existing ener-
gy and transportation systems.
• A growing set of actors are considering or pursuing
research into solar radiation modification, including • Direct air capture requires large energy inputs, re-
outdoor experiments. sulting in either associated emissions or the diversion
of renewable resources that would otherwise displace
fossil fuels.
Geoengineering relies heavily on carbon
capture and storage. Carbon mineralization could promote wide
• Carbon capture and storage (CCS) are separately or dispersal of hazardous combustion wastes.
jointly required for several forms of carbon dioxide
removal. • Achieving large CO2 reductions from mineralization
would demand new mining at an unprecedented and
• Most large-scale CCS projects use captured carbon
infeasible scale.
for enhanced oil recovery or enhanced coal bed
methane. • Coal combustion waste and other industrial wastes
have been proposed as alternate feedstocks for miner-
• Proponents of carbon capture and storage estimate
alization.
that its use for EOR could spur consumption of
40% more coal and up to 923 million additional • The atmospheric impact of using coal combustion
barrels of oil in the US alone by 2040. waste would be minimal, and the process would pro-
mote coal by monetizing the industry’s largest haz-
ardous waste stream.
2 C E N T E R F O R I N T E R N AT I O N A L E N V I R O N M E N TA L L AW
Reliance on bioenergy with CCS could raise Solar radiation modification is a dangerous
emissions, threaten food security, and justify distraction—and is simply dangerous.
business as usual. • Techniques to modify earth’s albedo were among the
earliest forms of weather modification and geoengi-
• Carbon dioxide removal often relies heavily on bio-
neering research.
energy with CCS (BECCS), despite warnings that its
potential is overstated. • Fossil fuel companies have researched environmental
modification for decades as a potential profit stream.
• BECCS presents the same use and storage problems
as fossil CCS and direct air capture. • Global sulfur dioxide emissions from fossil fuel com-
bustion show solar radiation modification can affect
• Emissions due to land clearance for BECCS could
the climate, with profound risks.
exceed any reduction in atmospheric CO2.
• Solar radiation modification could cause acid rain
• Deploying BECCS at the scale suggested in many
and ozone depletion, disrupt storm and rainfall pat-
models would threaten food security and access to
terns across large regions, and reduce the growth of
land for millions of people.
crops and CO2-absorbing plants.
• Major oil companies rely on massive deployment of
• The most widely touted solar radiation modification
BECCS and carbon dioxide removal to justify con-
technologies would use sulfate aerosols, which are
tinued heavy use of oil and gas for the next century.
clearly linked to ozone depletion and acid rain.
FUEL TO THE FIRE 3
Fossil fuel interests have raised the profile of We must and can stay below 1.5°C without
solar radiation modification. relying on geoengineering.
• Fossil fuel interests played a significant but largely • Clear and achievable pathways exist for keeping the
unrecognized role in shaping the research and public world below 1.5°C.
debates on solar radiation modification. • All pathways that avoid overshooting 1.5°C of warm-
• Despite its risks, solar radiation modification has ing require an early, rapid phase-out of fossil fuels.
been promoted as a means to delay or minimize oth- • This transition is ambitious, but achievable by accel-
er forms of climate action and allow business-as-usu- erating the deployment of existing renewable energy
al reliance on fossil fuels. and energy efficiency technologies.
• Despite international moratoria, open-air solar radia- • Low-risk, win-win approaches exist to reduce CO2
tion modification experiments are being actively ex- emissions from the land and natural resource sectors
plored. while advancing other sustainable development
• Proponents of solar radiation modification recognize goals.
that such tests could open the door to wider-scale • Geoengineering deployments pose a high risk of de-
deployment of geoengineering. laying the necessary transition, while creating new
threats that compound and exacerbate climate im-
Geoengineering is creating new tools for pacts.
climate denial—and they are being used.
• Climate denialists have long advocated geoengineer-
ing as an excuse for climate inaction.
• Recent years have seen a resurgence in geoengineer-
ing interest among opponents of climate action.
• Contrary to claims by geoengineering proponents,
the use of geoengineering by climate denialists is nei-
ther uncommon nor coincidental.
Recommendations
Humanity has a limited and rapidly closing window to avoid truly catastrophic climate change. To keep warming below 1.5 degrees,
the world must reduce greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030 and reach net zero emissions by around 2050. By entrenching fossil
fuel interests and promoting continued reliance on fossil infrastructure, geoengineering distracts from more viable solutions and
threatens to exacerbate the climate crisis, while exposing large parts of the world to new and significant risks. The managed decline of
fossil fuels is both a necessary and achievable solution to the climate crisis.
Climate policy should:
• Focus at the national and global level on the rapid, managed decline of fossil fuels and the accelerated transition
to a new energy economy in a timeframe that will keep the world below 1.5 degrees of warming.
• Ensure that all public infrastructure investments align with the Paris Agreement and the 1.5-degree goal.
• Avoid policies that promote or subsidize the construction of new fossil infrastructure or extend the economic
life of existing fossil infrastructure, including through subsidies for carbon capture and storage, direct air cap-
ture, or BECCS.
• Prohibit open-air experiments of solar radiation modification techniques.
4 C E N T E R F O R I N T E R N AT I O N A L E N V I R O N M E N TA L L AW
Introduction: Postcards from the Edge of a Climate Breakdown
I
t is more than 120 years since Svante leaders, and the general public to recog- mate system.”4 And it shares a common
Arrhenius published the first calcula- nize the growing climate threat and to act moniker: geoengineering.
tions of global warming caused by while there is still time.
human emissions of carbon dioxide Since at least the 1980s, proposals that
(CO2), eighty years since Guy Callendar Even as the world grappled with “inad- humanity attempt to geo-engineer its way
published the first evidence that humans vertent” climate change caused by human out of the climate crisis have been gener-
were inadvertently modifying the atmo- activity, a smaller cadre of scientists, gov- ally relegated to the fringes of climate
sphere at a global scale, and sixty since ernments, and corporations continued to science and policy. This fringe status re-
Roger Revelle warned that humankind publish on, invest in, and occasionally flected not only the profound uncertain-
was now conducting “a vast geophysical experiment with intentional modification ties and potentially staggering costs of
experiment” on the Earth through its un- of the climate and the geosphere at a vari- tinkering with planetary systems, but also
bridled combustion of fossil fuels.3 ety of scales—to confront climate change, the profound risks of doing so.
to advance goals unrelated to climate
Through the ensuing decades, and against change, or both. This body of research Over the last decade, however, and with
a backdrop of ever more robust scientific and practice employs a diverse array of increasing speed, geoengineering strate-
consensus and ever greater levels of cer- theories, strategies, and technologies, but gies, technologies, and risks have moved
tainty, the scientific community has re- shares a common objective: “deliberate from the fringes of climate discourse to-
peatedly called on governments, industry large-scale intervention in the Earth’s cli- ward its center. In significant part, this
©DAN BREKKE VIA FLICKRFUEL TO THE FIRE 5
shift reflects a growing alarm among sci- risks. One such risk is that rather than continued production and use of oil, gas,
entists, decision-makers, and concerned provide a solution, geoengineering will and coal for decades to come. And it ex-
observers that a substantial amount of further entrench the fossil fuel economy poses the stark contrast between the
global climate change is already locked in; and make the transition from fossil fuels emerging narrative that geoengineering is
that humanity has yet to act on the cli- more difficult. a morally necessary adjunct to climate
mate crisis at anything approaching the action and the commercial arguments
ambition, scale, or urgency required; and In light of their history, capacity, and that geoengineering is simply a way of
that, accordingly, dangerous ideas once fundamental commercial interests, it avoiding or reducing the need for true
considered unthinkable must now be ex- should come as little surprise that fossil systemic change, even as converging sci-
amined. As others have documented at fuel companies have been among the ence and technologies demonstrate that
length, however, the growing focus on most active and sustained players in the shift is both urgently needed and increas-
geoengineering also reflects the persistent, geoengineering space. To date, however, ingly feasible. Finally, it highlights the
intensive, and well-resourced efforts of a the nature and extent of the fossil indus- growing incoherence of advocating for
relatively small group of scientists and try’s role in geoengineering has received speculative and risky geoengineering tech-
industries to push geoengineering tech- inadequate attention and scrutiny. nologies as critical to human rights while
nologies into climate debates and poli- at the same time ignoring the pervasive
cies.5 The present report represents a first step and disastrous risks to human rights these
toward filling that gap. It investigates the same technologies present for both pres-
early, ongoing, and often surprising role ent and future generations.
Many and perhaps most proponents of of the fossil fuel industry in developing,
geoengineering are acting in good faith. patenting, and promoting key geoengi-
The scientists, policy experts, activists, Many proponents of geoengineering test-
neering technologies. It examines how the
and citizens who look to geoengineering ing and deployment have downplayed or
most heavily promoted strategies for car-
as a potential solution are rightly con- dismissed these “excuse for delay” and
bon dioxide removal and solar radiation
cerned about the severity of the climate “moral hazard” critiques of geoengineer-
management depend on the continued
crisis, the extent of warming to which the ing as overblown and largely theoretical.
production and combustion of carbon-in-
world is already committed, and the To the contrary, our analysis demon-
tensive fuels for their viability. It analyzes
dwindling number of paths available to strates those risks are both underestimat-
how the hypothetical promise of future
avert worst-case scenarios. However, any ed and—for many geoengineering tech-
geoengineering is already being used by
consideration of geoengineering must nologies—potentially unavoidable.
major fossil fuel producers to justify the
begin with a thorough examination of its
BOX 1
A Note on Coverage
Given the wide array of geoengineering technologies that
have been proposed and the decades-long history of
geoengineering research, this report does not address every
geoengineering idea that has been proposed, or even all of
those that have been seriously considered. It focuses instead
on those technologies that figure most heavily in current,
ongoing debates about geoengineering testing and
deployment. Similarly, and in light of the global nature of
the fossil fuel industries, this report could not and does not
purport to cover the panoply of fossil fuel industry research
into or promotion of geoengineering worldwide. For
example, the role of US oil and coal companies is discussed
more extensively than that of the European coal industry,
© B E N I TA 5 V I A P I X A B AY
fossil fuel interests in China and India receive less attention
still, and the vast majority of other countries are not
addressed at all. CIEL has prepared this report in the hope
and expectation that it will spur future research to close such
gaps.6 C E N T E R F O R I N T E R N AT I O N A L E N V I R O N M E N TA L L AW
PA R T 1
The Scientific Basis and Moral Imperative for Urgent Climate
Action
I
n October 2018, the United Nations sector by mid-century,”9 with rapid re- it couples widespread adoption of energy
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ductions by 2030 providing the greatest efficiency and renewable energy technolo-
Change (IPCC) released its starkest likelihood of avoiding overshoot (or sur- gies with the near elimination of coal
warning yet on the growing impacts passing 1.5 degrees of warming). The (-97%), oil (-87%), and gas (-74%) by
of climate change, the urgent need for IPCC recognized that every scenario re- the year 2050. It closes the remaining gap
accelerated climate action, and the dire quires tradeoffs between near-term ambi- through a limited deployment of forest,
consequences of further delay. Against a tion, the risk of overshoot, transitional agriculture, and land-use measures, in-
growing backdrop of intense storms, challenges between 2030 and 2050, and cluding afforestation and reforestation.12
floods, and wildfires worldwide, the re- the amount of carbon dioxide removal This approach is consistent with the
port synthesizes and summarizes what has (CDR) that would eventually be re- IPCC’s finding that “1.5°C-consistent
long been evident to scientists and in- quired. But it concluded that the risk of pathways would require robust, stringent
formed observers alike: The 1.0 degree overshoot, transitional challenges, and the and urgent transformative policy inter-
Celsius of warming the planet has already utilization of CDR—with all its atten- ventions targeting the decarbonization of
experienced is putting human lives, hu- dant risks and impacts—are all signifi- energy supply, electrification, fuel switch-
man rights, and ecosystems at risk around cantly reduced if ambitious action is taken ing, energy efficiency, land-use change,
the world. in the near term.10 It cautioned that strat- and lifestyles.”13
egies that prioritize taking concerted ac-
In its Special Report on 1.5 degrees tion only after 2030 “face significant risks In each of the three remaining illustrative
(SR1.5),6 the IPCC recognized that these of carbon infrastructure lock-in and over- pathways, the IPCC modeled the contin-
risks will be increasingly severe and wide- shoot, with the risk that a return to 1.5 ued use of forest and land-use measures,
spread in a world projected to be at least degrees could not be achieved.”11 but also incorporated progressively esca-
1.5 degrees warmer. More importantly, lating deployments of carbon capture and
in an update to the well-known “Burning storage (CCS) and bioenergy with CCS
Embers” diagram, the IPCC confirmed (BECCS).15 The IPCC highlighted the
the growing scientific consensus that “The available literature indicates potential value of forest and land use
warming near or above 2.0 degrees would that 1.5°C-consistent pathways measures in accelerating early action on
push human and biological systems well would require robust, stringent and climate change and noted the particular
into the danger zone across multiple urgent transformative policy benefits of increased conservation and
“Reasons for Concern.” Critically, the interventions targeting the restoration efforts in natural areas for
IPCC concluded that limiting warming their rapid deployability, lower risk of
decarbonization of energy supply,
to 1.5 degrees is still possible, but de- social and environmental impacts, and
mands immediate, dramatic reductions in electrification, fuel switching, energy potential for positive co-benefits.16 It ob-
greenhouse emissions and a rapid trans- efficiency, land-use change, and served that, as additional information has
formation of our global energy system.7 lifestyles.” emerged in recent years on the viability,
Specifically, the IPCC concluded that scale requirements, and potential negative
— I P C C S R 1 . 5 14
keeping warming within 1.5 degrees re- impacts of BECCS, projections of its po-
quires the world to reduce global carbon tential contributions to global emission
dioxide emissions 45% by 2030 and reductions have been declining. The
achieve net zero CO2 emissions by 2050.8 Accordingly, the first, most ambitious, IPCC observed that few reliable models
and safest of IPCC’s illustrative pathways for meeting 1.5 targets incorporated di-
The IPCC modeled four illustrative path- (Pathway 1) models an immediate and rect air capture with CCS (DACCCS) or
ways to achieving those goals. A unifying rapid transformation of our energy sys- other proposed carbon dioxide removal
factor in all of the pathways was the “vir- tem to reduce CO2 emissions 58% by technologies. It cautioned, however, in
tually full decarbonization of the power 2030 and 97% by 2050. To achieve this, the Summary and throughout the report,FUEL TO THE FIRE 7 FIGURE 1 Reasons for Concern IPCC, Summary for Policymakers, in GLOBAL WARMING OF 1.5°C: AN IPCC SPECIA`L REPORT ON THE IMPACTS OF GLOBAL WARMING OF 1.5°C 13 (V. Masson-Delmotte et al. eds., 2018), https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/07/SR15_SPM_version_stand_alone_LR.pdf.
8 C E N T E R F O R I N T E R N AT I O N A L E N V I R O N M E N TA L L AW
that the economic and technological un-
FIGURE 2
certainties associated with these ap- IPCC Pathway 1 to 1.5oC
proaches, the long projected timelines for
their deployment at any meaningful scale,
and the moderate to high likelihood of
negative social and environmental im-
pacts made reliance on these technologies
risky and inherently speculative.17
The IPCC expressly declined to incorpo-
rate any form of solar radiation modifica-
tion (SRM) into its model, citing the per-
vasive and profound uncertainties, signifi-
cant questions about the feasibility of
most SRM approaches, and the high risk
of negative impacts.18
Remarkably, and in stark contrast to the
cautious language and clear warnings of
the IPCC itself, the release of the SR1.5
report has triggered a barrage of stories in
the global media arguing that geoengi-
neering—whether through large-scale
CDR, SRM, or both—may be the only
way to save the climate, the planet, and
humanity.19 A growing drumbeat of ac-
tivists, public officials, and concerned
citizens are calling for accelerated public
support for development and deployment
of these technologies. While these de-
mands are sincere, the call for diverting
public attention and resources to these
geoengineering technologies—and the
companies that control or stand to bene-
fit from them—is not a backup plan or
an insurance policy. Instead, it risks fur-
ther entrenching the fossil fuel economy
and making it even harder to combat the
IPCC, Summary for Policymakers, in GLOBAL WARMING OF 1.5°C: AN IPCC SPECIAL REPORT ON
climate crisis. THE IMPACTS OF GLOBAL WARMING OF 1.5°C 13 (V. Masson-Delmotte et al. eds., 2018), https://
www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/07/SR15_SPM_version_stand_alone_LR.pdf.FUEL TO THE FIRE 9
PA R T 2
Geoengineering: Carbon Dioxide Removal, Solar Radiation
Management, and Beyond
A
s noted in the introduction, processes or through the deployment seek to manage the flow of energy within
geoengineering has been suc- of complex—and often unproven— and among earth systems. Such proposals
cinctly described as the “delib- technologies. Among the most wide- include transferring hotter surface ocean
erate large-scale intervention in ly discussed (or heavily touted) CDR water to lower depths or building giant
the Earth’s climate system.”20 The array approaches are: pipes to push low-atmosphere air into the
of techniques and technologies potential- upper atmosphere. To date, these earth
ly encompassed within this definition is o Afforestation and reforestation, system modification proposals have re-
vast and diverse—ranging from restoring o Soil sequestration, ceived considerably less public attention
forests and agricultural soils to spraying than CDR and SRM, and this report will
aerosols into the atmosphere to deploying o Bioenergy with carbon capture not discuss them at length.
giant mirrors in space. and storage,
o Direct air capture with carbon
There is ongoing debate about what capture and storage, “...with Carbon Capture
should and should not be considered geo-
engineering and the categories into which o Enhanced weathering, & Storage”: Why CCS is
various geoengineering approaches can be o Ocean alkalinization, and Vital to the
divided. The IPCC’s SR1.5 Report ex-
pressly avoids the term “geoengineering”
o Ocean fertilization. Geoengineering
and instead divides the approaches and • Solar radiation modification—also Debate
technologies involved into two broad and called solar radiation manage-
distinct classes: those which purport to ment—does not attempt to reduce The ways in which geoengineering tech-
remove carbon dioxide from the atmo- greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the at- niques are categorized, and what is and is
sphere (carbon dioxide removal), and mosphere, but proposes to modify not considered geoengineering, will affect
those which alter the Earth’s balance of the earth’s radiation balance in ways law, scientific research, private and public
solar radiation (solar radiation modifica- that alter heat absorption at regional capital flows, and the sociopolitical con-
tion).21 Within CDR, the United Nations or global levels and temporarily mask text in which critical public decisions
Environment Program further distin- the effects of anthropogenic warm- about geoengineering are made. For that
guishes between approaches that are ing. The most widely discussed tech- reason, this report applies an expansive
based on natural processes (such as refor- nologies for SRM include: definition of geoengineering, viewing all
estation or soil restoration), those involv- technological CDR methods and all
ing a mix of nature and technology (such o Atmospheric aerosol injection, forms of SRM as within the geoengineer-
as bioenergy with carbon capture and ing umbrella. This comprehensive ap-
storage), and approaches that are primar- o Marine cloud brightening,
proach is vital to any realistic evaluation
ily technological (such as direct air cap- o Marine sea surface brightening, of CDR and SRM methods because of
ture with carbon capture and storage).22 and the critical ways in which the various
o Modifying the albedo, or reflec- technologies and strategies intersect and
• Carbon dioxide removal technolo- interrelate.
gies seek to remove emitted CO2 tivity, of polar ice or promoting
from the atmosphere. Also known as polar ice growth.
While individual CDR projects may not
negative emission technologies, CDR appear to be global in scale, the wide-
The CDR/SRM dichotomy does not cap-
proposes to “draw down” atmo- scale deployment of CDR methods
ture the full spectrum of geoengineering
spheric levels of CO2, whether would reshape the planet. CDR at the
proposals and technologies. For example,
through enhancement of natural scale suggested by its proponents would
it does not account for techniques that10 C E N T E R F O R I N T E R N AT I O N A L E N V I R O N M E N TA L L AW
lead to massive geological storage of car- weatherization, mineralization, and ocean nologies necessary to pursue CDR and
bon dioxide, land-use change over enor- alkalinization may draw heavily on car- SRM at scale. These companies have been
mous parcels of land for use in minerals bon capture technologies in their process- involved in geoengineering research and
mining or bioenergy production, and po- es and feedstocks, or may require coal debates from their earliest days and are
tentially dramatic changes to marine eco- combustion wastes or similar residuals to not separate from—but rather inextrica-
systems across large regions. operate at scale. Accordingly, many of the bly linked to—any real-world execution
financial and policy incentives which of geoengineering.
Further, CDR methods—like SRM could apply to one of these technologies
methods and geoengineering generally— would (or do) apply to others. It is not surprising that the fossil fuel in-
pose the same risks that are at the heart of dustry has invested and is investing heav-
this report. The wide adoption of CDR ily in the technologies that would render
techniques risks entrenching fossil fuel Geoengineering May a transition from fossil fuels less urgent.
interests and making mitigation efforts But it is important to acknowledge the
considerably more difficult. This is espe- Entrench Fossil Fuel depth of those connections. The debate
cially true as core CDR technologies are Interests around geoengineering will in part deter-
disproportionately owned or funded by mine the trajectory of the global response
fossil fuel companies. The IPCC makes clear in SR1.5 that the to climate change. To limit warming to
key to limiting warming to 1.5 degrees is 1.5 degrees, the global community will
Most significantly, this report considers transition. The path out of a world with need to mobilize massive public and pri-
the pervasive role of carbon capture and runaway global warming is not simply a vate resources. It will need to redesign
storage within geoengineering and the matter of emissions adding and subtract- systems and restructure vast sectors of the
role of the fossil fuel industry in promot- ing up to a certain amount. Entire systems global economy. A focus on geoengineer-
ing CCS. As is readily evident from their of energy, land use, urban design, infra- ing risks slowing that transition, diverting
titles, and as discussed more fully herein, structure, and industrial production need investments from other more realistic and
BECCS, the most widely discussed tech- to shift from a reliance on fossil fuels to more workable solutions, while enriching
nological approach to CDR, expressly more sustainable paradigms. and entrenching the very interests at the
relies on effective use of CCS. Similarly, heart of the crisis itself.
the most widely discussed technologies Geoengineering threatens this transition
for direct air capture (DAC) would re- by entrenching the exact systems that Geoengineering proponents are right to
quire the operation of large-scale carbon need redesigning. Proponents and experts be concerned. The situation is dire, and
storage to dispose of captured carbon un- of CDR techniques acknowledge that the we as a global community should test out
less, as is frequently proposed, the cap- “main advantage of sequestration is its and invest in a diverse suite of technolo-
tured carbon were simply processed into compatibility with existing fossil fuel in- gies and techniques to combat this crisis.
carbon-based fuels, to be combusted and frastructure.”23 SRM, in addition to pos- But the core challenge remains known:
re-emitted into the atmosphere. More- ing enormous unknown risks, is acknowl- We need to transition away from reliance
over, DAC approaches frequently rely on edged even by its supporters as a perfect on fossil fuels. Anything that moves us
CCS as a source of low-carbon fuel to excuse for inaction.24 toward greater reliance will not be a solu-
power their own energy-intensive pro- tion, and the push for geoengineering is
cesses. Less obviously, but no less signifi- Finally, and critically, the fossil fuel in- likely to do exactly that.
cantly, CDR techniques such as enhanced dustry controls huge swaths of the tech-FUEL TO THE FIRE 11
PA R T 3
Asphalt Fields and Black Carbon Skies: A Brief History of
Fossil Fuels and Weather Modification
W Early Oil Industry
hile widespread public companies to develop pioneering tech-
and scientific debate niques for clearing fog-bound airstrips by
about geoengineering has massive flaring of fossil fuels.25 By the Interest in Weather
only recently emerged
from a long period of quiescence and rel-
1950s and into the 1960s, rising signs
that the Arctic was warming26 spurred a
Modification
ative obscurity, neither the basic princi- flurry of research and discussion within The oil industry began studying hurri-
ples underlying geoengineering technolo- the US and Russian military and scientif- cane formation no later than the 1940s.30
gies nor the fantasy of applying them at ic communities as to how that warming This research was necessary to protect the
ever larger scales are recent developments. might be accelerated to produce a perma- industry’s investments in a rapidly ex-
Governments, scientific institutions, and nently ice-free Arctic Ocean, whether panding fleet of offshore oil rigs, which
private companies, including many fossil through blocking rivers, “blackening po- were often damaged or disabled by hurri-
fuel companies, were conducting research lar ice caps,” or using coal plant emissions canes in the Gulf of Mexico. But by no
into weather modification and albedo or nuclear blasts to generate persistent ice later than the 1960s, some in the oil in-
enhancement more than sixty years ago. fogs and melt the Arctic sea ice.27 In a dustry were actively exploring techniques
1958 report reviewing and critiquing to control or modify the weather, not just
Experimentation with weather modifica- these various projects, Henry Wexler of understand it. In some cases, the concern
tion at local and regional scales began in the US National Weather Bureau prof- was related to hurricanes—how to divert
the 1930s and began to accelerate and fered a warning that remains prescient their course or dissipate their energy. In
diversify in the 1940s. Governments, in- and relevant six decades later: other cases, the purpose was to seed
cluding their militaries, were interested in clouds and increase precipitation, specifi-
using weather modification for a variety “When serious proposals for large-scale cally through the use of petroleum by-
of purposes—to make rains more predict- weather modification are advanced, as products.
able, to dissipate fog or redirect storms, to they inevitably will be, the full resources
convert ice-covered areas into habitable of general-circulation knowledge and Esso (now ExxonMobil (Exxon)) spent
zones, and to use as tools of war. Aca- computational meteorology must be considerable time and money researching
demic institutions sought greater under- brought to bear in predicting the results weather modification techniques. As Exx-
standing, and oil companies sought to so as to avoid the unhappy situation of on’s chief scientist, James F. Black played
protect their financial interests. Industry the cure being worse than the ailment.”28 a key role in Exxon’s internal research on
groups saw weather modification as a carbon dioxide and climate change in the
means to protect their existing invest- Yet, by as early as 1965, a landmark cli- 1970s and 1980s.31 Before this, Black was
ments and to open new product lines and mate report to US President Lyndon an active contributor to Exxon’s research
profit streams. Johnson, led by Roger Revelle of the into intentional weather modification.
Scripps Institute, included a suggestion
Early science on climate change was fre- that increasing the albedo, or reflectivity, In 1963, Black published two studies de-
quently discussed and reported in parallel of the Earth could combat atmospheric scribing Exxon’s experiments in coating
with this research, as an “inadvertent” warming.29 While the prospect of using large areas of land with asphalt, with the
form of weather modification. Guy Call- such technological fixes may have retreat- goal of lowering albedo, raising surface
lender, whose work in 1938 brought cli- ed into the background, it retained a re- temperatures, and increasing rainfall in
mate change back into active scientific curring interest for some of the world’s nearby areas.32 In this paper, Black de-
debate, spent much of World War II most powerful and well-resourced corpo- scribes how spreading asphalt, which ab-
working with the UK’s Petroleum War- rate actors. sorbs sunlight and emanates heat, could
fare Department and British and US oil12 C E N T E R F O R I N T E R N AT I O N A L E N V I R O N M E N TA L L AW
alter meteorological conditions at a local by local effects become regional, and intentioned, fully independent people
to regional scale to produce rainfall over above which regional effects become pursuing research and deployment of
arid areas.33 Experiments of this tech- global. This understanding—that weather these technologies. It is simply to demon-
nique were covered in a 1963 edition of modification and climate engineering strate that the extent to which the fossil
Popular Mechanics,34 and Black later pat- exist on a spectrum and are not isolated fuel industry was (and still is) researching
ented the process on behalf of Exxon.35 or independent activities—was therefore and supporting various forms of geoengi-
While the initial experiments were limit- clear to experts on the subject no later neering—especially the more controver-
ed in scope, Exxon envisioned deploying than 1974. sial solar radiation management tech-
the technique over tens to hundreds of niques—remains unknown.
square miles. These reports from the National Acade-
mies of Science and Colorado State Uni- The foregoing is far from a comprehen-
In 1964, the National Academy of Sci- versity document the oil industry and sive overview of the history of weather
ences convened a Panel on Weather and fossil fuel companies’ significant interest modification, or even the history of fossil
Climate Modification. In 1966, the Panel in weather modification and climate con- fuel company involvement with it. Rath-
published the outcomes of its work in trol at its earliest stages. Critically, it also er, it serves to demonstrate three critical
Weather and Climate Modification: Prob- exemplifies the ways in which these inter- points.
lems and Prospects,36 which summarized ests were aligned with or reflected in re-
the state of knowledge and research needs search by academic institutions and First, as was the case in the history of the
in the field of meteorological control. scholars. Fossil fuel companies frequently climate debate, oil companies were there
Black participated in two of the twelve hired academics (e.g., Colorado State from the beginning. These companies
meetings that contributed to the final University’s M.L. Cornin) as consultants had a strong business interest in under-
report.37 Notably, this report also includ- or funded university research programs. standing and controlling the weather to
ed a long discussion on then-emerging protect high-value assets and their core
climate science and the risk that accumu- One example of the latter is the Universi- markets, and they used their well-re-
lating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere ty of California San Diego Center for sourced and sophisticated research appa-
could lead to global warming.38 Energy Research,41 created in 1974 via a ratuses to explore their options.
grant from the Gulf Oil Foundation.42 In
In 1974, Colorado State University pub- addition to several studies relating to cli- Second, these companies saw opportuni-
lished a book-length report entitled mate change generally,43 the Center also ties to use waste or by-products of their
Weather Modification by Carbon Dust Ab- investigated options for modulating solar production processes—such as carbon
sorption of Solar Energy.39 Two of the four radiation balance to combat the effects of black and asphalt—as new profit centers,
authors of this report, M.L. Corrin and increased carbon dioxide accumulating in much as they did after 1950 with chemi-
C.A. Stokes, had deep fossil fuel industry the atmosphere.44 One of the authors of cals now used for plastics.
connections, working for Philips Petro- this paper was directly funded by Shell’s
leum and Citgo, respectively.40 This re- graduate funding program.45 Finally, these companies developed a
port evaluated the idea of spraying large deep expertise and understanding of wind
amounts of carbon black, or soot, in dif- and rain patterns and the manipulation of
ferent ways to absorb solar energy and The Importance of incoming solar radiation. Though these
preliminary studies may not have been
modify the weather or climate.
Acknowledging this conducted to combat climate change or
This report is significant for several rea- Early Fossil Fuel provide potential alternatives to emissions
reduction, once the debate over how to
sons. First, the authors both identify the
industry’s clear financial incentive in Interest adapt to climate change and the subse-
modifying weather to diffuse tornadoes quent debate over whether or not to en-
and hurricanes, among other applica- The purpose of identifying this connec- gage in geoengineering began in earnest,
tions, and note the utility of using fossil tion is not to claim that all academic in- these companies were better positioned
fuels—in this case, petroleum to make terest in weather modification or climate than almost any other institutions to un-
carbon black—for these applications. Sec- control stems from fossil fuel industry derstand the parameters of that debate.
ond, the report identifies a meso level of funding. As mentioned in the introduc-
weather and climate modification, where- tion, there are and always have been well-FUEL TO THE FIRE 13
PA R T 4
Carbon Dioxide Removal and Negative Emissions:
The Pervasive Role of Carbon Capture, Use, and Storage
Most geoengineering approaches being fuel or bioenergy production and use, as Direct air capture, although distinct from
actively explored rely on the effective and well as on the social, environmental, and carbon capture from flue gases, would
widespread deployment of some form of food security impacts of producing biofu- require the deployment of even more en-
carbon capture and storage or carbon els at the scales required to create mean- ergy-intensive technologies and would
capture, use, and storage (CCUS). ingful emissions reductions. As its name still require the storage or productive use
implies, however, BECCS will also re- of enormous quantities of harvested CO2.
For example, most debate on bioenergy quire the deployment and operation of
with carbon capture and storage has CCS infrastructure at an unprecedented Many proposals for enhanced weathering
rightly focused on the lifecycle green- scale and in a manner that is economical- or carbon mineralization rely on concen-
house gas and pollutant emissions of bio- ly viable. trated streams of carbon dioxide generally
FIGURE 3
ExxonMobil Webpage on Carbon Capture and Storage
Developing Cutting Edge Technology – Carbon Capture and Storage, EXXONMOBIL, https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/technology/carbon-capture-and-storage/
carbon-capture-and-storage/developing-cutting-edge-technology-carbon-capture-and-storage (last visited Jan. 3, 2019).14 C E N T E R F O R I N T E R N AT I O N A L E N V I R O N M E N TA L L AW
operating at industrial point sources, or by Shell in 2018, called its Sky Scenar- er, SRM proponents must assume that
would arguably constitute forms of waste io.50 The Sky Scenario purports to pres- mitigation efforts will move so slowly that
management and storage for coal fly ash ent a potential pathway for the world en- sustained SRM deployments may be nec-
(a residual from coal combustion) and ergy transition to achieve the goals of the essary, but just rapidly enough that excess
other industrial wastes. Paris Agreement. The scenario, however, GHG concentrations can nonetheless be
relies extraordinarily heavily on deploy- brought down to safe levels without re-
As discussed more fully herein, CCUS ment of CCS, both to capture fossil fuel course to CDR technologies.
technology has been disproportionately emissions and for use with bioenergy.
funded, promoted, and controlled by fos-
sil fuel companies. CCUS is valuable to
The scenario requires that at least 10,000 Carbon In, Carbon Out:
major CCS facilities be constructed, de-
the fossil fuel industry in three key ways: spite acknowledging that fewer than 50 Captured Carbon and
it expands oil production, provides a life-
line to a declining coal industry, and fur-
are in operation today.51 Significantly, Enhanced Oil Recovery
positing CCS deployment at this scale
ther entrenches the overall fossil fuel permits Shell to project continued heavy The technology required to remove car-
economy. reliance on fossil fuels, particularly oil bon dioxide from gas streams has been
and natural gas, until 2100. around for over 70 years.54 While compa-
For oil companies, CCS presents an op-
nies such as Exxon have recognized the
portunity for additional oil production The relationship between CCUS and potential value of these technologies in
because the primary uses of captured car- geoengineering strategies based on solar addressing climate change since at least
bon thus far identified are the production radiation modification is more complex. 1980,55 the historic development of CO2
of more oil or other petrochemical prod- Even proponents of solar geoengineering capture has been primarily driven by
ucts. Exxon proudly declares that it has “a acknowledge the risks of termination commercial purposes unrelated to climate
working interest in approximately one- shock—that once SRM begins, any re- mitigation.
quarter of the world’s total carbon cap- duction in SRM intensity would lead to
ture and storage (CCS) capacity[.]”46 catastrophically rapid atmospheric warm- The most widespread and commercially
Chevron “has invested more than $75 ing unless and until atmospheric green- important of these purposes is enhanced
million in CCS research and develop- house gas concentrations have been re- oil recovery (EOR). EOR is a technique
ment over the last decade.”47 BP, in addi- turned to lower levels.52 Accordingly, for extracting new oil from a depleted
tion to its seventeen-year sponsorship of many proposed SRM strategies explicitly well—that is, from a once-productive
the Carbon Mitigation Initiative, is a cur- presuppose the widespread deployment of well that can no longer be commercially
rent sponsor of the CO2 Capture CCS.53 In the absence of CCUS, howev- exploited through other economic means.
Project.48 And Shell has a working inter-
est in four CCS projects, discussed in
greater detail below.49
FIGURE 4
For coal producers and power generators, Type of CO2 utilization patents
especially coal-fired power plants, CCS
provides a lifeline to keep the industry
operational in a carbon-constrained
world. Finally, for all fossil fuels, the
promise of technologies that purport to
ameliorate the climate crisis while leaving
the fossil-based global energy system fun-
damentally unchanged provide social,
political, and economic cover for compa-
nies to advocate for and assume the con-
tinued economic viability of that system.
As a result, incentivizing CCUS through
policy and relying on it in planning will
likely slow the transition away from fossil
fuel investments and undermine broader
efforts to mitigate climate change.
This centrality is made explicit in one Rahmad Norhasyima & T.M. Indra Mahila, Advances in CO2 Utilization Technology: A Patent Landscape Review, 26
J. OF CO2 UTILIZATION 323 (2018), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
proposed two-degree pathway published S2212982018301616.FUEL TO THE FIRE 15
By injecting highly-pressurized CO2 and CCS and geoengineering strategies that cluding plastics, petrochemicals, synthetic
water into a depleted well, oil companies encourage CCS because EOR remains fuels, and cements.64 As noted by the
can force remaining oil to the surface and the key driver of profitable CCS deploy- Global CCS Institute, however, “the mar-
extract it for sale and use.56 Put more sim- ment. Despite decades of research into ket for products derived from non-EOR
ply, EOR is a means of oil production, the process, fossil energy with carbon cap- use of CO2 is small relative to what is
and its critical input is condensed CO2. ture and storage, especially coal-fired needed to be stored.”65 The Norway-
Anything that makes that CO2 cheaper power with CCS, cannot compete with based research group NORCE, which
will enable oil companies to extract ever the ever-falling cost of renewable ener- actively advocates for CCUS, echoed this
more oil from depleted wells, whereupon gy.60 The ability to sell the carbon dioxide view in a presentation at the 2018 climate
it will be burned—and emitted to the to an EOR operator is the primary ave- negotiations in Katowice, Poland, observ-
atmosphere—just like any other fossil nue through which this expensive process ing that EOR is “currently the only com-
fuel. can become profitable. mercially ready process allowing for si-
multaneous utilization and storage
The first patent for EOR with carbon As a case in point, even with government (CCUS) of industrial-scale volumes[.]”66
dioxide was granted in 1952;57 and by incentives,61 as of December 2018 there Thus, even if one ignores the environ-
1984, the industry was explicitly touting were only two large-scale fossil energy mental and climate impacts of their pro-
the technology’s importance to long-term power plants with carbon capture units duction and use, these non-EOR prod-
oil production.58 Today, the vast majority operating: the Boundary Dam project in ucts (other than transportation fuels) are
of carbon dioxide used in industrial pro- Canada and the Petra Nova plant in the likely to account for only a small fraction
cesses is used for EOR, and EOR is ex- United States.62 Both are coal-fired, and of CO2 use for the foreseeable future.
pected to remain the dominant use of both use the captured carbon dioxide for
industrial CO2 for the foreseeable fu- EOR.63 This reality is reflected in a 2018 land-
ture.59 scape review of patents in the CCUS
Increasingly, proponents of carbon cap- space. Patents for EOR and enhanced
The role of CO2 in EOR is critical to un- ture claim that captured CO2 can be used coal bed methane production accounted
derstanding the viability and value of in the production of other products, in- for more than a quarter (26%) of the
FIGURE 5
CO2 Emissions/Storage Balance from Simulated CO2-EOR Case Study
Presentation, Roman Berenblyum, NORCE, Regional business case for CO2-EOR and storage – the subsurface solution toolbox, at 4, http://cop24.co2geonet.com/
media/10127/5_regional-business-case-for-co2eor.pdf (last visited Feb. 6, 2019).16 C E N T E R F O R I N T E R N AT I O N A L E N V I R O N M E N TA L L AW
cally feasible. Moreover, even in those
FIGURE 6
CO2 Emissions from Developed Fossil Fuel Reserves, Compared to Carbon Budgets
countries where EOR capacity is substan-
within Range of the Paris Goals tial, proponents of large-scale CCS de-
ployment acknowledge that EOR wells
are not a sufficiently large reservoir for
stored carbon dioxide.69 Despite the in-
dustry’s extensive research into carbon
storage,70 as well as research from institu-
tions such as the International Energy
Agency,71 underground carbon dioxide
storage has not been demonstrated to
work at the scale needed for the global
deployment of CCS some advocates sup-
port.
More fundamentally, the oil and gas in
existing developed wells already exceeds
the total remaining carbon budget needed
to give the world even a 50% chance of
keeping total temperature rise below 1.5
OIL CHANGE INTERNATIONAL, DRILLING TOWARDS DISASTER: WHY U.S. OIL AND GAS
degrees Celsius. Adding developed coal
EXPANSION IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH CLIMATE LIMITS 5 (2019), http://priceofoil.org/content/ reserves and cement brings the cumula-
uploads/2019/01/Drilling-Towards-Disaster-Web-v2.pdf. tive emissions embedded in the existing
fossil fuel resources perilously close to 2.0
degrees even if no new fossil resources
3000 patents identified. An additional 200,000 tons of CO2 emitted by the pro- were developed.72
53% of patents covered the use of CO2 in duced oil until the well is fully depleted.
chemicals or as fuels.67 To reverse these resulting emissions, a In view of the IPCC’s clear warnings that
further 200,000 tons of CO2 must be a rapid and dramatic transition away
Accordingly, calls for additional CCS or injected into the now fully depleted well from fossil fuels provides the best hope
CCUS—or for geoengineering tech- long after the economic incentives for for keeping warming below 1.5 degrees,
niques reliant thereon—should primarily doing so have ceased to exist. Yet it is any policy that would promote fossil fuel
be understood to drive the expansion of only after these emissions from the pro- production in the name of climate miti-
enhanced oil recovery or the production duced oil have been fully offset, and the gation faces a heavy—and likely insur-
of combustible fuels. This EOR, in turn, energy penalties that arise from carbon mountable—burden of proof.
will necessarily lead to the increased pro- capture itself have been accounted for,
duction and consumption of oil, the in- A recent change in US law serves as a case
that a CO2-EOR project could begin hav-
creased GHG emissions that arise from in point.
ing any measurable positive impact on
its combustion, and increased invest- emissions.
ments in the infrastructure for producing, Promoting CCS, DAC, and EOR in
distributing, and using fossil fuels. Even were this not the case, EOR faces
two further and fundamental limitations
the US Tax Code
A “Simulated Case Study” of a 20-year when viewed in the context of the global In mid-2018, the US Congress passed the
CCS-EOR project presented by NORCE climate crisis. First, and fundamentally, Furthering carbon capture, Utilization,
demonstrates one common explanation both the climate crisis and sources of fos- Technology, Underground storage, and
for how CCS-EOR would reduce emis- sil fuel emissions are global in nature. Reduced Emissions (FUTURE) Act,
sions, as well as the manifest problems Accordingly, to contribute to meaningful which altered a tax credit under Section
with that theory.68 (See Figure 5.) In the GHG reductions on a global basis, EOR 45Q of the US Internal Revenue Code.73
simulation, a CCS project begins inject- would need to be available and economi- Prior to the changes, the provision pro-
ing CO2 into a depleted well in 2026, cally viable in the areas where the most vided a tax credit for the underground
leading to a massive increase in the oil intensive emissions occur. In reality, how- storage of CO2. The credit was worth $20
production from the well. Over the ensu- ever, there is a substantial disconnect be- per metric ton for CO2 stored in geologic
ing three years, from 2026-2029, the rela- tween the areas where large emissions formations, and $10 per ton for CO2
tively modest amount of CO2 stored by sources are concentrated and areas in used as an injectant for enhanced oil re-
injection is dwarfed by an additional which EOR is technically and economi- covery.You can also read
