Carbon dioxide capture and storage—liability for non-permanence under the UNFCCC

Bode, Sven; Jung, Martina

doi:10.1007/s10784-006-9004-4

Cited by 20 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A similar conclusion concerning the investor's amount of information regarding the extent of past environmental contamination (and the related clean-up costs) and the investor's willingness to pay for a particular enterprise in a bid is also confi rmed by Earnhart (2004). A distinction should, of course, be made between retroactive liability on the one hand and liability for future damage, for example future releases of greenhouse gases, on the other hand (so thus Bode and Jung, 2006).…”

Section: Retroactive Liability?mentioning

confidence: 75%

Environmental Liability

Faure

2009

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website.• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:

show abstract

Section: Retroactive Liability?mentioning

confidence: 75%

Environmental Liability

Faure

2009

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An accountability issue related to non-permanence is how to allocate or manage liability for reversals in stored carbon (Bode and Jung, 2006;Fuss et al, 2016). This issue is important as liability for reversals, or even uncertainty concerning liability for reversals, can undermine confidence and investment in storage technologies, as has been the case with CCS under the EU CCS Directive (Oraee-Mirzamani, Cockerill and Makuch, 2013).…”

Section: Accountability/liability For Non-permanencementioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon accounting for negative emissions technologies

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Negative emissions technologies (NETs) are an essential part of most scenarios for achieving the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to below 2°C and for all scenarios that limit warming to 1.5 °C. The deployment of these technologies requires carbon accounting methods for a range of different purposes, such as determining the effectiveness of specific technologies or incentivising NETs. Although the need for carbon accounting methods is discussed within the literature on NETs, there does not appear to be a clear understanding of the range of different accounting challenges. Based on a systematic literature review this study identifies five distinct accounting issues related to NETs: 1. estimating total system-wide change in emissions/removals; 2. non-permanence; 3. nonequivalence of 'no overshoot' and 'overshoot and removal'; 4. accounting for incentives for NETs; and 5. the temporal distribution of emissions/removals. Solutions to these accounting challenges are proposed, or alternatively, areas for further research and the development of solutions are highlighted. One key recommendation is that carbon accounting methods should follow a 'reality principle' to report emissions and removals when and where they actually occur, and an important overall conclusion is that it is essential to use the correct accounting method for its appropriate purpose. For example, consequential methods that take account of total system-wide changes in emissions/removals should be used if the purpose is to inform decisions on the deployment or incentivisation of NETs. Attributional methods, however, should be used if the purpose is to construct static descriptions of possible net zero worlds.

show abstract

“…It paved the way for research on short-term and long-term risk and regulatory challenges with CCS including social acceptability of the technology (Coninck et al, 2009a,b;Shackley et al, 2007Shackley et al, , 2009). The literature on designing appropriate legal and regulatory frameworks for CCS in national and global settings is expanding (Bode and Jung, 2006;Mace et al, 2007;Wilson et al, 2007Wilson et al, , 2008). An effective and efficient regulatory framework is crucial, as it will influence the economic performance, risk, and social acceptability of future CCS practices.…”

Section: Regulation Policy Instruments and Public Acceptancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A second central research theme is how CCS is being integrated in international organizations, climate diplomacy and treaties, involving issues such as international financing of CCS research and deployment, and the role of CCS in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in a post-Kyoto multilateral climate process (Bode and Jung, 2006;Pollack and Wilson, 2009;Vajjhala et al, 2007). This aspect relates to whether full-scale demonstration of CCS can be coordinated internationally and whether CCS technologies can be advanced in global ministerial forums such as the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (Coninck et al, 2009a,b).…”

Section: International Politics and Ccs In Developing Countriesmentioning

confidence: 99%