Time to stop investing in carbon capture and storage and reduce government subsidies of fossil‐fuels
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12929017 |
|---|---|
| Authors | John C Stephens (0000-0003-0386-8115, Clark University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2013 |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 169-173 |
| Publication date | 2013-12-20 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1757-7780 • E-ISSN: 1757-7799 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1002/wcc.266 |
| OpenAlex | W2171158871 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 22 |
Government investment in carbon capture and storage ( CCS ) is a large and expensive fossil‐fuel subsidy with a low probability of eventual societal benefit. Within the tight resource constrained environments that almost all governments are currently operating in, it is irresponsible to sustain this type of subsidy. CCS has been promoted as a ‘bridging’ technology to provide CO 2 reductions until non‐fossil‐fuel energy is ramped up. But the past decade of substantial government investment and slow progress suggests that the challenges are many, and it will take longer to build the CCS bridge than to shift away from fossil‐fuels. Optimism about the potential of CCS is based primarily on research on technical feasibility, but very little attention has been paid to the societal costs of governments perpetuating fossil‐fuels or to the sociopolitical requirements of long‐term regulation of CO 2 stored underground. Deep systemic change is needed to alter the disastrous global fossil‐fuel trajectory. Government investment in CCS and other fossil‐fuel technologies must end so that the distraction and complacency of the false sense of security such investments provide are removed. Instead of continuing to invest billions in CCS , governments should invest more aggressively in technologies, policies, and initiatives that will accelerate a smooth transition to non‐fossil‐fuel‐based energy systems. We need to divest from perpetuating a fossil‐fuel infrastructure, and invest instead in social and technical changes that will help us prepare to be more resilient in an increasingly unstable and unpredictable future. WIREs Clim Change 2014, 5:169–173. doi: 10.1002/wcc.266 This article is categorized under: Climate Economics > Economics of Mitigation The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Decarbonizing Energy and/or Reducing Demand
Business · Carbon capture and storage (timeline · Climate change · Divestment · Economic policy · Economics · Energy security · Fossil fuel · Government (linguistics · Market economy · Natural resource economics · Renewable energy · Subsidy · Waste management · Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics · Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies · Climate Change Policy and Economics · Engineering · Ecology · Finance
Why and Where to Fund Carbon Capture and Storage
Separating the debate on CO2 utilisation from carbon capture and storage
What are sources of carbon lock-in in energy-intensive industry? A case study into Dutch chemicals production
Selling stories of techno-optimism? The role of narratives on discursive construction of carbon capture and storage in the Japanese media
How do we reinforce climate action
World Energy Outlook 2012
Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy
Stabilization Wedges
Why We Disagree about Climate Change
The political economy of technology support
The politics and policy of carbon capture and storage
Carbon capture and storage policy in the United States
Characterizing the international carbon capture and storage community
| Unique citing works | 5 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,5 |
| Citation span | 2016 - 2024 (9) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 5 |