Geoengineering in the European Union. EU-financed projects and their implications for the European Green Deal.

About the author Anja Chalmin has been active in supporting environmentally friendly, climate-friendly and low-residue agriculture in various positions for more than 20 years. Since 2011, she has also been focusing on climate geoengineering technology, projects, research and experimentation. Anja holds a Diploma in Agricultural Engineering (Horticulture, sub-/tropical Horticulture) from the University of Applied Sciences Osnabrück and an MSc Agroforestry from Bangor University.

Contents Introduction 5

1 The European Green Deal mentions CCS and CCU 7 as possible measures to implement the declared climate targets

2. The European Union has not met its own targets 8
   for testing CCS – yet CCS is regarded
   as a “climate and resource frontrunner”
   under the European Green Deal
3. The European Hydrogen Strategy relies on blue 11
   hydrogen in the short and medium term – and thus
   on an immature technology with high GHG emissions
4. EU funding increasingly plays a role in financing 13
   geoengineering projects
5. The role of geoengineering in nationally elaborated 16
   climate plans gaps widely
6. The number of geoengineering actors in the EU 18
   is increasing
7. Geoengineering is not compatible with the goals 19
   of the European Green Deal – and may even make it
   more difficult to achieve them
   List of sources 21
   Annexes 25
   Annex 1 (chapter 4, figure 2): Number and contents 25
   of EU-funded geoengineering projects
   Annex 2 (chapter 4, figure 3): EU funding for GE projects 26
   in FP’s 5 to 8
   Annex 3 (chapter 5): The role of geoengineering in national 27
   strategic plans
   Annex 4 (chapter 6): European lobby groups working 33
   on the issue of geoengineering
   Geoengineering in the European Union 4/39
   Glossary
   BASRECCS Baltic Sea Region network for CCS
   BECCS Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
   CCS Carbon Capture and Storage
   CCU Carbon Capture and Utilisation
   CCUS Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage
   CO2
   Carbon dioxide
   DAC Direct Air Capture
   DKK Danish krone
   EEA European Environmental Agency
   EEPR European Energy Programme for Recovery
   EGD European Green Deal
   EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
   ETS Emission Trading System
   EU European Union
   FP Framework Programs
   GE Geoengineering
   GHG Greenhouse Gas(es)
   HRK Croatian kuna
   NDCs Nationally Determined Contributions
   NECPs National Energy and Climate Plans
   NER300 New Entrants’ Reserve programme, funded from the sale
   of 300 million ETS allowances
   NRRPs National Recovery and Resilience Plans
   SRM Solar Radiation Management
   Geoengineering in the European Union 5/39
   Introduction
   The notion of geoengineering includes a wide array of technologies that seek to intervene
   in and alter earth systems on a large scale – a “technofix” to climate change. Most geoengineering tech falls into two categories. The most contentious is solar radiation management (SRM), which aims to reflect more sunlight back into space to cool the planet by
   creating brighter and more reflective clouds or by injecting sun-dimming aerosols into the
   stratosphere to mimic a huge volcanic eruption. The other major category of geoengineering – large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from exhaust fumes or the atmosphere
   – is more prominent in the debate. It includes ideas like carbon capture from exhaust and
   underground storage (CCS) as well as carbon use (CCU), but also CDR in marine environments, such as artificial upwelling. CCS and CCU are an integral component of many
   geoengineering schemes and many climate models currently envision them on large-scale.
   This paper takes a comprehensive approach and considers all geoengineering approaches
   that have been studied and are policy relevant in the EU context.
   There are many reasons to be wary of these technologies. They do not address the underlying causes of climate change themselves, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, thereby
   delaying the implementation of a transition away from fossil fuels. As they are very pricy,
   they redirect funding and investments away from real climate solutions. Some geoengineering proposals require vast amounts of energy, nullifying any potential benefit. There are
   also geopolitical and social concerns: technologies could have transboundary impacts or be
   weaponized, e.g., SRM, or use up vast amounts of land, e.g., BECCS. Indigenous peoples
   have a particular vulnerability, for example due to potential displacements or changes in
   agricultural opportunities. Lastly, they are largely unproven und their actual impact on the
   climate system is difficult – for some approaches: impossible – to test without potentially
   irreversible consequences.
   Geoengineering approaches figure prominently in net zero plans and pledges, of both governments and corporations, in particular. This contributes to an environment where urgent
   choices about decarbonization of industry, transport, and power production are postponed.
   To be relevant to ‘net zero‘, the geoengineering technologies must be deployed at very large
   scale. Failure of these technologies would lock in several degrees of warming, with a catastrophic impact.
   In the European context, the debate on “net zero” has only started. While – after tough
   negotiations – the EU institutions agreed on an Climate Law to enshrine the overarching
   objective of the European Green Deal, climate neutrality by 20501
   , and even net negative
   emissions thereafter into law, the question how much emission reductions could be achieved
   via technologies and not natural sinks remains open.2
   Many of the relevant actors in this
   field (the EU institutions Commission, neighboring states with regulatory links to the EU,
   companies, NGOs) have not yet developed a substantial and stable position on the issue.
   1 It is important to recall that the objective to become climate neutral only in 2050 and to reduce
   emissions by net. 55 % by 2030 is per se against the principle of common bur differentiated
   responsibilities and therefore not compatible with the Paris Agreement target of limiting global
   average temperature rise to 1.5°C.
   2 For the 2030 target priority is given to natural sinks, in large parts due to purely physical factors
   as technological solutions cannot contribute significantly in the short term.
   Geoengineering in the European Union 6/39
   The Climate Law itself uses cautious language and sees responsibility with Member States
   to decide whether they want to rely on such technologies. CCS and CCU are especially
   relevant in the debate around so-called “low-carbon gases” because they play a role in
   important policy files, such as the Hydrogen Strategy and the Taxonomy for Sustainable
   Finance. In 2022, the European Commission will make a legislative proposal on carbon
   removal certification.
   Against this background, the policy brief on hand provides an overview and critical evidence-based analysis of both the role of the EU in financing geo-engineering projects and
   the role of geo-engineering in relevant EU policies under the umbrella of the European
   Green Deal. It ought to feed into the debate of how the EU can reach the long-term objective of carbon neutrality by 2050. It seeks to answer the following questions: Where does
   the EU stand in the debate on geo-engineering? Are there striking differences among the
   member states? Which role do the above technologies play in the European Green Deal and
   the overarching goal to become climate neutral by 2050 and achieve net negative emissions
   thereafter? In which policy files is the bet on CDR especially relevant? Which projects on
   GE has the EU funded? And which actors have had an influence in that debate? As such, it
   aims to inform decision-makers, civil society actors and journalists about players and their
   positions in the area, financial expenses and opportunity costs of such projects, and the
   overall relevance of geo-engineering projects in climate policy making.
   The report is structured around the following themes: The first three chapters examine the
   role of geoengineering (GE) in relevant EU policies, focusing primarily on GE technologies
   mentioned under the umbrella of the European Green Deal in the context of the transition
   to climate neutrality. The interactive geoengineering map, generated by the Heinrich Böll
   Foundation and ETC Group, allows a detailed insight into GE activities in the European
   context. Based on the available information in the map, the fourth chapter analyses the
   role of the European Union (EU) in financing GE projects. The fifth chapter provides an
   overview of the EU member states’ approach to GE by summarising the role of GE technologies in the national strategic plans as well as the member states’ experiences with
   GE technologies to date. The sixth chapter provides insights into the geoengineering lobby
   and the extent to which the EU has helped shape the existing lobby structures. The final
   chapter questions whether geoengineering is a suitable instrument for implementing the
   goals of the European Green Deal.
   Climate policy context
   Climate has become a top policy priority for the institutions of the European Union. The
   European Parliament declared a climate emergency in November 2019 and one month
   later, the European Commission under President von der Leyen communicated on its
   flagship project: the European Green Deal. Its main objectives are economic growth
   decoupled from resource use, a zero-pollution environment, halting biodiversity loss and
   – above all – no net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050. The EU’s first Climate Law,
   passed in June 2021, enshrined the goal of a climate-neutrality for the EU as whole
   by 2050 into law. After 2050, the EU aims for negative emissions – but how the EU
   will remove more greenhouse gases from the atmosphere than it emits is still unclear.
   The Climate Law also raised the EU emissions reduction target from 40% to at least
   55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. The 2030 target is a net target, as natural
   Geoengineering in the European Union 7/39
   CO2
   sinks, such as forests, peatlands or soils, are allowed to contribute to meeting the
   climate target. However, natural CO2
   sinks are capped at 225 million tonnes of CO2
   .
   In addition to natural sinks, policy makers also consider technical solutions to achieve
   future targets, for example carbon capture and storage. The European Commission will
   propose an action plan to promote carbon removals from forests, agricultural practices
   or engineered mechanisms and develop a regulatory framework for the certification of
   such carbon removals by late 2022.
8. The European Green Deal mentions
   CCS and CCU as possible measures to
   implement the declared climate targets
   Among the goals of the European Green Deal is that the EU should be climate neutral
   by 2050. Proposed for implementation are also measures that do not combat the
   causes of climate change but seek to reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases
   in the atmosphere.
   In the European Green Deal, published in late 2019, the European Commission points to
   climate and environmental problems – such as the rise in atmospheric temperature, the
   loss of species and the pollution of oceans and forests – and sets the goals to become climate neutral by 2050. Besides, the European Green Deal “aims to protect, conserve and
   enhance the EU’s natural capital, and protect the health and well-being of citizens from
   environment-related risks and impacts”. In order to achieve the climate-related goals, various instruments are to be used, including “carbon pricing”, “removing subsidies for fossil
   fuels”, and “the phasing out of fossil fuels, in particular those that are most polluting”. In
   section 2.1.2 on “supplying clean, affordable and secure energy”, as one of a number of
   measures, the European Green Deal recommends the introduction and promotion of carbon
   capture, storage and utilization. The EC’s staff working document “Impact Assessment –
   Stepping up Europe’s 2030 climate ambition” defines carbon capture and storage (CCS)
   as “a set of technologies aimed at capturing, transporting, and storing CO2
   emitted from
   power plants and industrial facilities” and elaborates that “the goal of CCS is to prevent CO2
   from reaching the atmosphere, by storing it in suitable underground geological
   formations”. Carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) is defined as a “process of capturing
   carbon dioxide (CO2
   ) to be recycled for further usage”. The European Green Deal section 2.1.3 on “mobilising industry for a clean and circular economy” lists CCS and CCU
   among the “climate and resource frontrunners” that are expected “to develop the first
   commercial applications of breakthrough technologies in key industrial sectors by 2030”,
   such as carbon-free steel making.
   CCS as a mean to achieve climate targets has already been addressed in previous communications of the European Commission. The 2018 communication “A Clean Planet for
   all” identified CCS as one of four main pathways to a sustainable energy system in 2050
   Geoengineering in the European Union 8/39
   and describes CCS as a mean to reduce emissions. Back in 2013, the communication on
   the Future of Carbon Capture and Storage in Europe outlined that “fossil fuels are likely
   to continue to be used in Europe’s power generation as well as in industrial processes for
   decades to come” as well as a scenario for the deployment of CCS – “with 7% to 32% of
   power generation using CCS by 2050 […], if commercialized”.
   CCS and CCU are both so-called geoengineering technologies that are an integral component
   of many geoengineering schemes. The scale at which they are currently envisioned in many of
   the climate models would make them geoengineering as such. The term geoengineering (GE)
   refers to deliberate, usually large-scale, interventions in the Earth’ climate system with
   the aim of reducing or masking the effects of climate change. Rather than addressing
   the underlying causes auf climate change, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, the
   proposed GE technologies primarily attempt to reduce the concentration of greenhouse
   gases in the atmosphere, or to reflect more sunlight back to space.
9. The European Union has not met its
   own targets for testing CCS – yet
   CCS is regarded as a “climate and
   resource frontrunner” under the
   European Green Deal
   The European Council committed to testing the feasibility and economic viability of
   CCS. Up to twelve large-scale demonstration projects were to be conducted under
   two different funding programmes. In the end, only seven of these projects were
   planned, but none was implemented. Nevertheless, the European Union and the
   European Green Deal continue to back CCS – even though the self-imposed targets
   for testing CCS have not been achieved.
   In 2007, the European Council committed to support up to twelve large-scale demonstration
   CCS projects by 2015. For implementation, support for CCS was made possible through
   two financing instruments – the European Energy Programme for Recovery (EEPR) and
   the European NER300 funding programme.
   In 2013, six years later, a communication on the Future of Carbon Capture and Storage in
   Europe from the European Commission stated that
   — “the need for large scale demonstration and deployment of CCS, in view of its commercialisation, has not receded and has only become more urgent”;
   Geoengineering in the European Union 9/39
   — “investment in CCS demonstration is required to test whether the subsequent deployment and construction of CO2 infrastructure is feasible. The first step on this path is
   therefore to ensure a successful commercial-scale demonstration of CCS in Europe
   that would confirm CCS’s technical and economic viability as a cost-effective measure
   to mitigate GHG in the power and industrial sector.”
   A 2018 European Special Report, produced by the European Court of Auditors, explains
   that the two programs introduced to support the twelve large-scale demonstration CCS projects have not succeeded in deploying the projects. The following map provides an overview
   of the planned projects and the respective reasons for failure:
   Figure 1: The European Council committed to support up to 12 large-scale demonstration
   projects to test CCS. In the end, seven projects were planned, but none of the projects
   were implemented.
   Compostilla project:
   EEPR funded,
   scale-up cancelled
   for financial reasons
   ROAD project:
   EEPR funded,
   cancelled for
   financial reasons
   White Rose
   project: NER300
   funded, cancelled
   due to high costs
   Vattenfall Jänschwalde
   project: EEPR funded,
   abandoned due to
   public opposition
   Belchatow project: EEPR
   funded, cancelled due to lack of
   funding, technical risks, public
   opposition, and legal issues
   Porto Tolle project: EEPR funded,
   abandoned for financial reasons and
   annulment of the environmental permit
   Don Valley project:
   EEPR funded,
   abandoned for
   financial reasons
   Geoengineering in the European Union 10/39
   The EEPR programme was launched in 2009 and aimed to support nine offshore wind
   projects with €565 million as well as six CCS projects with €1 billion. Regarding the
   CCS projects, the EEPR had the target of making CCS technology commercially viable by
   the end of the decade. Although a total of €424 million was spent on the CCS projects, with
   an additional €150 million in national funding in the case of the ROAD project, this target was missed. In spite of this high cost to the taxpayer, none of the EEPR CCS projects
   reached commercial status, but all were abandoned.
   The NER300 funding programme aimed “to successfully demonstrate environmentally safe
   carbon capture and storage (CCS)” and to demonstrate “a wide range of CCS technologies”. During the first call, in 2012, none of the CCS projects were considered for funding,
   because they “were not confirmed by the Member States concerned”. During the second call,
   in 2014, only one CCS proposal was submitted, but cancelled in 2015. The unspent funds
   will be reinvested in the NER300 successor programme, the Innovation Fund. The funding
   instrument aims to invest up to €10 billion to advance “breakthrough technologies for
   renewable energy, energy-intensive industries, energy storage, and carbon capture, use and
   storage”. The Innovation Fund launched its first call for large-scale projects in July 2020,
   with the second call expected in October 2021. The proportion of large-scale projects related to geoengineering cannot yet be viewed – 66 applications were submitted in June 2021
   and grants will be awarded at the end of 2021.
   Although the targets to test the feasibility and economic viability of CCS have not been met,
   the EU continues to rely on CCS, “because a significant amount of power generation and
   industry will continue to rely on fossil fuels also in the future”. A Commission report, issued
   in 2020, summarized: “although the financial support of EEPR was not sufficient to prompt
   companies to realise commercial-scale CCS demonstration projects, the Commission still
   considers CCS important for decarbonisation”. It remains inexplicable how a technology
   that has yet to be tested and assessed for feasibility and viability can turn into a “climate and
   resource frontrunners” and a “breakthrough technology” in the European Green Deal.
   Geoengineering in the European Union 11/39
10. The European Hydrogen Strategy relies
    on blue hydrogen in the short and
    medium term – and thus on an immature
    technology with high GHG emissions
    The European Hydrogen Strategy intends to introduce blue hydrogen – produced
    from fossil fuels and combined with CCS – as a large-scale interim solution. If this
    proposal is implemented, the combustion of fossil fuels will not only be prolonged, but
    also enlarged. Moreover, with CCS, the EU is relying on a technology that, despite
    long development cycles and extensive public funding, is still in its infancy, incurs
    high costs, and cannot guarantee safe storage of captured CO2
    .
    The European Hydrogen Strategy calls for hydrogen to play a key role in achieving a climate-neutral Europe. Currently, hydrogen makes up only a small share of the EU’s energy
    mix – which is predominantly produced from fossil fuels and generates large amounts
    of CO2
    . The EU aims to expand renewable hydrogen (“green hydrogen”), produced with
    renewable energies such as wind or solar energy, on a large scale. In the short and medium term, however, forms of so-called “low-carbon hydrogen” are also to be used, i.e.,
    hydrogen produced with fossil energy is to be combined with CCS (“blue hydrogen”). The
    Commission justifies this transitional phase, which allows the continued use of fossil energy
    sources for hydrogen production, as follows: “an incentivising, supportive policy framework
    needs to enable renewable and, in a transitional period, low-carbon hydrogen to contribute
    to decarbonisation at the lowest possible cost”.
    The Hydrogen Strategy will be pursued in three phases. In the first phase, from 2020 – 2024,
    a regulatory framework for a hydrogen market will be created, including “bridging the cost
    gap between conventional solutions and renewable and low-carbon hydrogen and through
    appropriate State aid rules”. In the second phase, from 2025 – 2030, projects are to be financed, e.g., “retrofitting of existing fossil-based hydrogen production with carbon capture”.
    In the third phase, from 2020-2030, approximatively €11 billion will be invested “in retrofitting half of the existing [hydrogen] plants with carbon capture and storage”. The Hydrogen
    Strategy concludes by stating that “low-carbon hydrogen can contribute to reduce greenhouse
    gas emissions ahead of 2030”. On what grounds this statement was made, since the intended CCS tests did not take place, is uncertain. The European Environmental Agency (EEA)
    stated in 2017 that CCS solutions “are expected to contribute to overall climate efforts
    but it is unclear whether or not they can be implemented at the scale needed and be viable
    and truly sustainable in the long term”. In 2020, the EEA adds that “currently, there are
    around 80 large scale CCS projects at various stages of development around the world but
    only a few are operational. There are as yet no large-scale CCS plants in operation which
    cover all three elements of the CCS chain – the capture, transport and storage of CO2
    .” As
    already observed in the previous chapter, the EU is thus relying on a technology that has
    not yet been proven. Nevertheless, blue hydrogen is scheduled for short- and medium-term
    Geoengineering in the European Union 12/39
    use. There are several reasons to question the undertaking and investments in the billions:
    • On the state of development of CCS technology: A recent European Commission
    communication on the potential of offshore renewable energy reports that in 1991,
    off the coast of Denmark, the world’s first offshore wind farm was installed and that
    “30 years later, offshore wind energy is a mature, large-scale technology providing
    energy for millions of people across the globe.” In 1996, the world’s first CO2 injection project was set up off the coast of Norway, but compared to wind power, CCS is
    still in its infancy. This raises the question of whether the planned investments
    in CCS as an interim solution should not rather be used for solutions that already
    work or that make sense in the long run.
    • On the cost of CCS – technology: The European Commission communication on
    the potential of offshore renewable energy in the EU states, that “today, offshore
    wind produces clean electricity that compete with, and sometimes is cheaper than
    existing fossil fuel-based technology.” In contrast, many CCS projects have not
    been realised, because they are too expensive, despite heavy public funding.
    • On the GHG footprint of blue hydrogen: The European Hydrogen Strategy describes blue hydrogen as “low-carbon hydrogen”. A recently published peerreviewed study proves that the term “low-carbon” is misleading by examining the
    lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of blue hydrogen accounting for both carbon
    dioxide and unburned fugitive methane. It finds that heating with blue hydrogen
    leaves a 20% larger GHG footprint compared to heating with fossil fuels such
    as natural gas or coal. In comparison to diesel oil, blue hydrogen even causes
    about 60% higher emissions. Equipping fossil fuel combustion plants with CCS increases their fuel consumption by up to 40%. The release of fugitive methane also
    dismisses blue hydrogen as a means for climate mitigation. For the study’s conservative default assumptions for methane emissions, total carbon dioxide equivalent
    emissions for blue hydrogen are only 9%-12% less than for gray hydrogen. In a sensitivity analysis in which the methane emission rate from natural gas is reduced to
    a low value under 2 %, greenhouse gas emissions from blue hydrogen are still greater than from simply burning natural gas. The analysis assumes that captured carbon dioxide can be stored indefinitely, an optimistic and unproven assumption. Thus,
    the study concludes: “We see no way that blue hydrogen can be considered ‘green’.”
    • On the environmental risks of CCS – technology: As CCS is very energy-intensive,
    large-scale deployment of blue hydrogen means that more fossil fuels have to be exploited. In addition, the European Hydrogen Strategy assumes that underground storage of CO2
    is safe. However, this has not been proven and the possibility of leaks due
    to faulty construction, earthquakes or other underground movements argue against it.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 13/39
11. EU funding increasingly plays a role in
    financing geoengineering projects
    During the first four EU multi-annual Framework Programmes, research projects on
    geoengineering played little or no role. Especially during FP7 and FP8, the number
    of EU-funded geoengineering projects and the funding allocated to them increased
    significantly. With regard to its content, this trend will continue in FP9, even though
    the proposed geoengineering technologies have no track record, are associated with
    significant risks, and do not address the root causes of climate change.
    Starting in 1984, the European Union has bundled its research, technological development
    and demonstration programs into multi-annual Framework Programmes (FP). FP1 (1984-
    1987) and FP2 (1987-1991) have no reference to the subject of geoengineering in terms of
    content. FP1 includes several studies on the circulation of CO2 in the atmosphere, in oceans
    and on a global scale.3
    An examination of anthropogenic influences on the climate begins
    in the context of individual research projects in FP2.4 In FP3 (1991-1994) and FP4 (1994-
    1998) the EU funded the first research projects on the technical and economic feasibility
    of CO2 capture from fossil fuel derived flue gas, on CO2 fixation in marine environments,
    as well as an initial study on the feasibility of geological CO2 storage. Figure 2, based on
    annex 1, shows how the number of geoengineering projects in the Framework Programmes
    has developed and provides an overview of the programme contents. The data analysed and
    presented in annex 1 not only confirm that the number of research projects on geoengineering has increased more than fivefold over the past decades, but also that the number
    of GE experiments has multiplied. Within FP8, with 55 known EU-funded GE projects,
    more than 40 field trials were conducted, including demonstration sites for CO2
    capture
    and CCUS, CO2 injection sites, and marine offshore trial sites.
    3 European Commission (2021) CORDIS database – FP1 projects: Interdisciplinary study of the
    carbon cycle – to study the temporal variations of atmospheric trace gases, Global climate and
    atmospheric carbon dioxide: role of circulation, Global climate and atmospheric carbon dioxide:
    role of ocean circulation, Interdisciplinary study on the carbon cycle – simulation of carbon cycle
    and CO2-concentration in the atmosphere, Global climate and CO2: The role of oceanic circulation
    4 European Commission (2021) CORDIS database – FP2 projects: Emissions of greenhouse gases
    from coal-fired plants, Biochemical carbon cycling in coastal zones, The global carbon cycle and its
    perturbation by man and climate, The global carbon cycle and its perturbation by man and climate,
    The greenhouse effect and European economic growth
    Geoengineering in the European Union 14/39
    Information on the budgets of geoengineering projects and the funding shares allocated by
    the European Union are available for the Framework Programmes FP5 to FP8. Figure 3
    and the data presented in annex 2 show that funding for geoengineering projects in FP8
    has increased more than fifteenfold compared to FP5. At the same time, the volume of
    funding for geoengineering projects, measured against the total budget of each Framework
    Programme, has increased almost fivefold. The share of EU funding for individual projects
    has also climbed: In FP5, FP6 and FP7, the EU covered on average 50% of the project
    costs. In FP8, this share increased to 73.4%.
    Figure 2: The number of EU-funded projects on geoengineering has increased significantly
    in FP7 and FP8. Please see Annex 1 for further details.
    0 10 20 30 40 50 60
    FP1 (1984-1987)
    FP2 (1987-1991)
    FP3 (1991-1994)
    FP4 (1994-1998)
    FP5 (1998-2002)
    FP6 (2002-2006)
    FP7 (2007-2013)
    FP8 (2014-2020)
    Number and contents of EU-funded geoengineering projects
    Biochar
    BECCS
    CO2-capture
    CCS
    CCUS
    DAC
    Marine GE (e.g., Ocean fertilisation)
    SRM-related projects
    Other
    2
    Number of projects
    Biochar BECCS CO2
    -capture CCS CCUS DAC
    Marine GE (e.g., Ocean fertilisation) SRM-related projects Other
    Geoengineering in the European Union 15/39
    FP8, also named Horizon 2020, is now being replaced by FP9, aka Horizon Europe. The
    European Green Deal stipulated that “at least 35% of the budget of Horizon Europe will
    fund new solutions for climate”. Horizon Europe has a total budget of €95.5 billion. In
    Pillar II, Cluster 5 – Climate, Energy and Mobility, FP9 aims to accelerate the development of various geoengineering approaches. The 2021-2022 Work Programme for Cluster 5
    includes CO2 capture technologies, CCUS in the power sector and energy intensive industries, CCUS possibilities in hubs and clusters, so-called “low-carbon” hydrogen from natural gas with CCUS, DAC approaches, CCS, geological CO2 storage, and biochar. It can
    therefore be assumed that the amount of EU funding for GE-relevant research projects will
    not decrease in FP9, but rather increase. This is also supported by the fact that in February
    2020, the European Parliament confirmed five pan-European CCS/CCUS networks as
    “Projects of Common Interest”, even though the geoengineering technologies in question
    have no track record, pose significant risks and do not address the root causes of climate
    change. The selected CCS/CCUS networks include the Dutch projects ATHOS and PORTHOS , the Irish Ervia Cork CCS, the Longship CCS in Norway and the British Acorn CCS.
    Inclusion in the list of Projects of Common Interest means that projects can apply for priority funding, but there is no guarantee of funding.
    0%
    10%
    20%
    30%
    40%
    50%
    60%
    70%
    80%
    0
    50
    100
    150
    200
    250
    300
    350
    400
    450
    500
    FP5 FP6 FP7 FP8 (H2020)
    EU funding for GE projects in FP’s 5 to 8
    Total budget for GE projects per FP (in € million)
    EU share of total budget (in € million)
    Average EU-funding share for individual GE projects (in %)
    Figure 3: EU funding for geoengineering projects has increased in several ways:
    The funding volume in the individual FPs has grown as well as the percentage of
    EU-funding per project. Please see annex 2 for further details. € million
    Geoengineering in the European Union 16/39
12. The role of geoengineering in nationally
    elaborated climate plans gaps widely
    The national strategy plans take very different positions on geoengineering technologies:
    some do not mention them at all, while in one case a GE approach is described as
    a “breakthrough technology”, others assume that geoengineering technologies will
    become interesting in 10 to 20 years at the earliest. Where geoengineering technologies
    are mentioned, mostly CCS and/or CCUS, they are to be tested and further developed,
    the latter mainly to reduce their high costs. An additional concern is the very high
    energy consumption of CCS and CCUS, adding to the consumption of fossil fuels. As
    a result, many proposed GE projects are suspected of generating extra emissions.
    To outline the role of geoengineering at the national level, climate relevant national strategic plans of the EU member states, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom
    were reviewed – to understand which forms of GE matter and to what extent. The National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) and the National Recovery and Resilience Plans
    (NRRPs) submitted to the European Commission were examined, where available, as well as
    the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) submitted to the UNFCCC secretariat. In
    the NECPs, the EU member states provide information on national energy and climate targets for the period 2021 to 2030, based on Regulation (EU) 2017/1999 on the Governance
    of the Energy Union and Climate Action. In order to be eligible for the European Recovery
    and Resilience Facility, EU member states must submit a NRRP that allocates at least 37%
    of spending to climate-related investments. The NDCs are based on the Paris Agreement,
    article 4, paragraph 2, and outline post-2020 climate action at national level. In addition to
    the information in the National Strategic Plans, the available date in the Geoengineering Map
    was used to examine what experiences the individual countries have gained to date with the
    geoengineering technologies identified in their National Strategic Plans.
    The results in annex 3 demonstrate that four countries – Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal and
    Switzerland – make no reference to researching or using geoengineering technologies in
    their national strategic plans. In the case of Malta and Luxembourg, no experience with
    geoengineering technologies has come to light to date. However, Portuguese and Swiss research institutions and companies have participated in pan-European research projects on
    geoengineering. In Switzerland, public funding has been made available for geoengineering
    projects on several occasions, and spin-offs of the ETH Zurich develop and commercialise
    geoengineering technologies, including outside Switzerland.
    The national strategic plans of the other countries address up to three geoengineering technologies, including CCS, CCU, CCUS, BECCS and DAC. CCS is mentioned most often, 23 times,
    CCU/CCUS second most often, 18 times, and DAC and BECCS two to three times each.
    The views on the future role of the aforementioned geoengineering technologies differ widely. The Austrian NECP describes CCUS as a “breakthrough technology for industry”, although there is little experience on CCUS at national level. The Cypriot NECP did not
    consider CCU technologies “due to the lack of available data”. In the context of CCUS, it
    is important to mention that CCUS products are not a permanent CO2 storage. Moreover,
    Geoengineering in the European Union 17/39
    CCUS is very energy- and cost-intensive, especially the process of CO2 capture. As a result,
    there is a risk that CCUS generates additional climate-related emissions instead of avoiding them.
    With CCS, the energy and cost issues are similar, and in addition, the underground storage
    of CO2
    is associated with high risks. As a result, more than 50% of known CCS proposals
    in Germany have been cancelled due to public opposition. Nevertheless, the German NECP
    states with regard on CCS that a “vast majority of studies and scenarios have now confirmed that from today’s perspective, CCS technology is vital for the achievement of greenhouse gas neutrality by 2050”. The Finnish NRRP describes CCS as an “important technology” with “the potential to grow into a huge market”, although the only known Finnish
    CCS project was discontinued due to technological and financial risks. The Dutch NECP
    considers CCS “as an inevitable transition technology for reducing CO2 emissions in sectors
    where no cost-effective alternative is available in the short term”. The Polish NECP points
    out that CCS technology is “recommended by the European Commission”, but “despite a
    wide-ranging research effort, it will be extremely difficult for CCS technologies to become
    commercially mature”. In addition, the Polish NECP states that “CCS technologies have
    proved to be very difficult to apply widely” and, that “it is not a foregone conclusion when
    these technologies will be commercially available, given that the last 10 years have not
    brought any significant progress, especially in terms of cost reduction”. The Hungarian
    and Slovenian NECPs assume that CCS will become interesting in 10 to 20 years at the
    earliest. The results of CCS projects to date confirm this: Major CCS projects worldwide,
    which were highly praised by the industry in their early days, are struggling with major
    technical and financial problems – despite very substantial public funding in the millions,
    e.g., the Australian Gorgon CCS project, the US Petra Nova project and the Canadian SaskPower project. Apart from the fact that the safety of underground storage of captured CO2
    has not been proven, the captured CO2
    is often used for Enhanced Oil Recovery – thus extracting more oil and producing extra emissions.
    The NDCs of Norway and the UK barely mention geoengineering technologies. However, this contrasts with the scale of public funding programmes for geoengineering – both
    countries have significant public funding available, including for the Longship CCS project
    in Norway and the HyNet North West project in the UK. In the European context, these
    two countries have had the most extensive experience with CCS, but many projects have
    failed, mostly due to high costs. Or fossil fuel companies have been unwilling to undertake
    CCS projects without substantial public funding, as in the case of the Logannet project.
    Some countries have been more specific regarding the expenditure or projects that will be
    implemented in relation to geoengineering: The Belgian NRRP announced €10 million to
    demonstrate CCS and CCUS. The Croatian NECP envisages a national feasibility study to assess CCS and CCUS; the costs of the study are estimated at HRK 1 million. The Danish NRRP
    proposes DKK 200 million “for a subsidy scheme to support the development and demonstration of CO2 storage sites in depleted oil and gas fields in the Danish part of the North Sea”.
    The Finnish NRRP will set up a €156 million programme to encourage “the scaling up of
    hydrogen production using clean energy and its utilisation and of carbon dioxide capture
    and use/storage”. The Romanian NRRP includes support for two gas-fired power plants
    with CO2 capture. Both projects, Halanga and Constanta, plan to channel the captured CO2
    into greenhouses, which means that the captured CO2
    will be released back into the atmosphere after a short period of time. As CO2 capture consumes more natural gas, additional
    emissions are generated – an issue that applies to the entire CCUS/CCS sector.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 18/39
13. The number of geoengineering actors
    in the EU is increasing
    The number of lobbying organisations working on geoengineering in the EU has
    doubled within the last few years. Some of the organisations have been initiated and
    financially supported by the European Commission. It seems that the natural gas
    industry in particular is strongly committed in order to continue using fossil fuels, but
    in combination with CCS. Many members of the advocacy organisations have been
    involved in EU-FP projects on geoengineering – their share of project partners from
    industry was almost 50%.
    In Europe, there are at least 20 larger and smaller organisations actively promoting the
    use of geoengineering technologies. Of these, half have been founded only recently – within
    the last five years. The organisations most frequently advocate for CCS, CCUS and socalled “low-carbon gases/low-carbon hydrogen” (please see annex 4).
    Four of the initiatives were launched with EU funding, including the CCUS Projects Network
    and CO2
    GeoNet. The CCUS Projects Network aims to support industrial CCUS/CCS projects and “works closely with the European Commission and the Network’s Steering Committee to ensure that members’ needs and interests are provided for while supporting the
    EU’s climate action ambitions”. In its early years, the network received €3 million in
    funding under an EU FP7 project and continues to receive EU support. However, it is led by
    its members, including Gassnova, Tata Steel, Drax and the Port of Rotterdam. CO2
    GeoNet
    advocates for CCS and aims to be the preferred source of “information and advice for the
    European Union, industry, regulators, the general public and other CCS stakeholders”. The
    network emerged from an eponymous EU FP6-project and was funded with €6 million.
    Public funding has also been spent in the UK to finance geoengineering initiatives, including the CCUS Advisory Group. This group is to support the implementation of the CCUSUK Action Plan and includes representatives from Shell, BP, Tata Steel and Drax.
    No less than six organisations are campaigning for “low-carbon hydrogen” with CCS. Their
    members are mainly companies from the natural gas sector that seek to develop a hydrogen
    economy based on existing infrastructures. One of the organisations is Hydrogen Europe – a
    lobbying platform with nearly 200 industry members. In addition to its lobbying activities,
    Hydrogen Europe is simultaneously working with the European Commission as a research body
    in a joint undertaking on hydrogen. This close link between industry and research can also be
    observed in the research projects on geoengineering in the European framework programmes.
    There, the share of project partners from industry is almost 50%. The majority of industrial partners come from the energy sector or from energy-intensive industries. The companies
    that have participated most frequently in EU-funded FP projects, more than ten times, include
    ALSTOM Power, RWE Power AG, Shell, Statoil and Vattenfall. Among the research institutions, the most frequent participants, more than 15 times, were SINTEF (Norway), TNO
    (Netherlands), CSIC (Spain), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (France), Bureau de
    Recherches Géologiques et Minières (France), and the British NERC. The EU-funded research
    projects on geoengineering were not evenly distributed across the EU. Research institutions
    and industrial partners from the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Norway and Italy
    were most frequently involved and coordinated more than two thirds of the projects.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 19/39
14. Geoengineering is not compatible with the
    goals of the European Green Deal – and
    may even make it more difficult
    to achieve them
    The European Green Deal aims to address climate and environmental challenges.
    Geoengineering is not an appropriate response to these challenges, as the proposed
    geoengineering technologies pose unmanageable risks for the environment and may
    even hinder the implementation of the European Green Deal goals. One example
    is the very high energy consumption of CO2
    capture processes underlying many
    geoengineering technologies. The high consumption can lead to both increased fossil
    fuel extraction and a delayed phase-out of fossil fuels.
    The following table provides selected examples of why the use of geoengineering is more
    detrimental than beneficial to the goals under the umbrella of the European Green Deal.
    Targets to be implemented
    under the umbrella of
    the European Green Deal
    Inconsistencies with the European Green Deal arising
    from the use of geoengineering technologies
    The European Green Deal
    demands the “phasing out
    of fossil fuels”.
    Prolonged/increased use of fossil fuels: The combination with CCS/CCUS, is intended to justify the continued use of fossil fuels. However, the CO2 capture process is very
    energy-intensive, which leads to a significantly higher consumption of fossil fuels. The
    higher consumption delays the phase-out of fossil fuels.
    The high energy consumption of many of the GE-approaches would lead to increased
    extraction and combustion of fossil fuels. Yet, according to the EEA, the EU is already
    importing about 50% of its domestic energy consumption and “the EU’s dependence on
    fossil fuel imports has increased”. The extra combustion of fossil fuels due to the deployment of GE technologies would lead to added climate-related emissions along the entire
    fossil fuel value chain.
    The European Green Deal
    “aims to protect, conserve
    and enhance the EU’s natural capital, and protect
    the health and well-being
    of citizens from environment-related risks and
    impacts”.
    The Zero Pollution Action
    Plan calls “improving air
    quality to reduce the number of premature deaths
    caused by air pollution by
    55%”.
    Air pollution: GE technologies focus on the capture of CO2
    . But the combustion of fossil
    fuels also releases methane and air pollutants. Methane is not only an important greenhouse
    gas, but can also reacts with other chemicals in the atmosphere to form ozone and to reduce
    the amount of “detergent” available to clean other types of pollutants. With further use of
    natural gas in particular, e.g., to produce blue hydrogen, fugitive methane emissions will
    increase. The air pollutants include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, non-methane volatile
    organic compounds, and particulate matter. The high energy usage of many GE technologies, such as CCS, can translate into more fossil fuels being combusted and more pollutants
    being released into the environment. This applies to power plants but also to many other
    energy-intensive industries. The pollutants may cause different and also multiple damages.
    One example is black carbon, which is formed during the incomplete combustion of fossil
    fuels. The EEA describes black carbon as particularly harmful to health and climate “as it
    represents a mixture of very fine, partly carcinogenic particles, small enough to enter the
    bloodstream and reach other organs”; and “In the atmosphere the carbon-containing pollutant effectively absorbs solar radiation leading to a warming of the atmosphere. When
    it settles on snow or ice, the darker colour absorbs more heat, accelerating melting.”.
    Not only with regard to CO2
    , but also with regard to air pollutants, neither prolonged nor
    increased burning of fossil fuels is compatible with the goals of the European Green Deal.
    But this is exactly where the use of energy-intensive GE technologies can lead.
    Table 1: Geoengineering technologies and their inconsistencies with the targets under the
    umbrella of the European Green Deal
    Geoengineering in the European Union 20/39
    Targets to be implemented
    under the umbrella of
    the European Green Deal
    Inconsistencies with the European Green Deal arising
    from the use of geoengineering technologies
    The New European
    Strategy on Adaptation to
    Climate Change finds that
    “The EU committed to
    climate neutrality by 2050
    and a more ambitious
    emissions reduction target
    of at least 55% by 2030,
    compared to 1990. A
    climate emergency has
    been recognised by the
    European Parliament, by
    several Member States,
    and by over 300 cities.
    The European Council has
    concluded that climate
    change is “an existential
    threat”.”
    CO2 storage safety: No geoengineering technology can guarantee safe and long-term
    CO2 storage. The safety of geological CO2 storage sites is not proven – leakages cannot
    be excluded, e.g., due to underground movements. Moreover, captured CO2 is often used
    for EOR, leading to the extraction of more fossil fuels and even greater emissions.
    If the injected CO2
    were to escape, humans, animals and nature could be harmed. The
    leaked, anthropogenically emitted CO2
    degrades only very slowly. After 1,000 years, up
    to 40% is still in the atmosphere. However, the entire decomposition process takes several
    hundred thousand years.
    Effective response to the climate emergency: Geoengineering technologies cannot be
    deployed quickly on a large scale, are associated with unmanageable risks and also with
    high investment and energy costs. Thus, they are not a suited to respond to the climate
    emergency declared by the European Parliament.
    Increase in GHG emissions: According to the EEA, the EU imports about 50% of its
    domestic energy consumption and “the EU’s dependence on fossil fuel imports has increased”. The large energy consumption of many GE processes, such as CCUS and CCS,
    would exacerbate this trend and lead to additional climate-relevant emissions along the
    entire fossil fuel value chain. This cannot be an appropriate response to the declared
    climate emergency.
    EU strategy to reduce
    methane emissions
    (Communication from the
    European Commission).
    Methane emissions (and safety of proposed CO2 storage sites): “In the energy sector,
    methane leaks from fossil fuel production sites, transmission systems, ships and distribution systems […] contribute to 50% of the energy sector’s emissions”. Abandoned mines,
    oil and gas sites can have significant levels of emission, “however, at present, there are
    no EU-wide rules on checking, measuring or utilising methane leakage or emissions from
    coalmines or oil and gas wells after their closure.” If the deployment of energy-intensive GE technologies delays the phase-out of fossil fuels, methane emissions will endure.
    A recent study points to the large number of methane leaks from fossil extraction sites.
    The same structures are proposed for underground storage of CO2 – casting further doubt
    on the safety of underground storage. Even with very strict regulations for the oil and gas
    sector, methane emissions will remain a problem: The Climate & Clean Air Coalition’s(CCAC)
    Scientific Advisory Panel estimates that a maximum of 70% of methane emissions from
    fossil fuels can be abated. This means that blue hydrogen will always face a methane
    problem, which will not be solved by CCS and CCU.
    Chemicals Strategy for
    Sustainability. Towards a
    Toxic-Free Environment
    (Communication from the
    European Commission).
    Production and disposal of chemicals: Many technical approaches to CO2 capture require very large quantities of toxic chemicals. These chemicals not only have to be produced, but also transported and disposed of. Geoengineering would therefore complicate
    the path to a toxic-free environment.
    On a new approach for a
    sustainable blue economy
    in the EU. Transforming
    the EU’s Blue Economy
    for a Sustainable Future
    (Communication from the
    European Commission).
    Conservation and security of marine ecosystems: The EC’s Communication on a
    Sustainable Blue Economy highlights the importance of marine ecosystems. The “oceans
    hold 97% of all our water and 80% of all life forms”, “food for almost half of humanity, and
    critical resources for human health, not to mention a web of economic interactions”. Some
    geoengineering proposals are to be implemented directly in the marine environment. The effectiveness of these proposals has not been proven, and the associated risks, e.g., for marine
    food chains, are incalculable. But a delayed phase-out of fossil fuels, due to energy-intensive
    GE technologies, is also associated with drawbacks for the marine environment, such as oil
    spills, acidification, changes in water temperature, and biodiversity loss.
    European Green Deal: “All
    EU policies should contribute to preserving and
    restoring Europe’s natural
    capital” new EU Strategy
    on Adaptation to Climate
    Change: “implementing
    nature-based solutions on
    a larger scale would increase climate resilience
    and contribute to multiple
    Green Deal objectives”.
    Land usage: Geoengineering technologies that rely on biomass, such as BECCS and
    biochar, would consume a great deal of land if introduced on a large scale. This would not
    only create competition with food production, but also jeopardise the desired conservation
    and restoration of natural capital.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 21/39
    List of sources
    Chapter 1
    ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2021) What is Geoengineering?, accessed:
    08/2021, https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/what-is-geoengineering/
    European Commission (2020) Stepping up Europe’s 2030 climate ambition. Investing
    in a climate-neutral future for the benefit of our people, published: 17.09.2020,
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020SC0176
    European Commission (2019) The European Green Deal, published: 11.12.2019,
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1588580774040&uri=CELEX-
    :52019DC0640
    European Commission (2018) A Clean Planet for all. European long-term strategic
    vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy, published:
    28.11.2018, https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/default/files/docs/pages/com_2018_733_
    analysis_in_support_en_0.pdf
    European Commission (2013) on the Future of Carbon Capture and Storage in Europe,
    published: 27.03.2013, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX-
    %3A52013DC0180
    Chapter 2
    ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2021) Geoengineering Map, accessed: 08/2021,
    https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
    European Commission (2012) Questions and Answers on the outcome of the first call for
    proposals under the NER300 programme, published: 18.12.2012,
    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_12_999
    European Commission (2013) The Future of Carbon Capture and Storage in Europe,
    published: 27.03.2013, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX-
    :52013DC0180
    European Commission (2013) On the implementation of The European Energy
    Programme for Recovery, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX-
    :52013DC0791
    European Commission (2013) Number of project proposals submitted to the EIB under
    the NER 300 funding programme by 3 July 2013 per Member State,
    https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/default/files/ner300/docs/project_proposals_en.pdf
    European Commission (2014) Questions and Answers on the outcome of the second call
    for proposals under the NER 300 programme, published: 08.07.2014,
    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_14_465
    All of the proposed geoengineering technologies carry unmanageable risks, and many of the
    proposals are very costly and energy-intensive. One of the biggest risks, however, is that geoengineering technologies create a false sense of security, even though none of the proposed
    technologies have been proven to work – despite decades of research and extensive funding.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 22/39
    European Commission (2018) On the implementation of the European Energy
    Programme for Recovery and the European Energy Efficiency Fund, published:
    05.03.2018, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0086
    European Commission (2019) The European Green Deal, published: 11.12.2019,
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1588580774040&uri=CELEX-
    :52019DC0640
    European Commission (2020) On the implementation of the European Energy
    Programme for Recovery and the European Energy Efficiency Fund, published:
    10.02.2020, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0038&qid=1630597612471
    European Commission (2021) EU funding possibilities in the energy sector: European
    Energy Programme for Recovery, accessed: 08/2021, https://ec.europa.eu/energy/funding-and-contracts/eu-funding-possibilities-in-the-energy-sector_en#european-energy-programme-for-recovery
    European Commission (2021) NER 300 programme, accessed: 08/2021,
    https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/innovation-fund/ner300_en
    European Commission (2021) Innovation Fund, accessed: 08/2021,
    https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/innovation-fund_en#tab-0-1
    European Court of Auditors (2018) Demonstrating carbon capture and storage and innovative renewables at commercial scale in the EU: intended progress not achieved in the
    past decade, https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/climate-action-24-2018/en/
    Chapter 3
    ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2021) Geoengineering Map, accessed: 08/2021,
    https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
    ETC Group & Heinrich Boell Foundation (2021) Geoengineering Technology Briefing:
    Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), published: January 2021, https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/carbon-capture-and-storage.pdf
    European Commission (2020) An EU Strategy to harness the potential of offshore
    renewable energy for a climate neutral future, published: 19.11.2020,
    https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/offshore_renewable_energy_strategy.pdf
    European Commission (2020) A hydrogen strategy for a climate-neutral Europe,
    published: 08.07.2020, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX-
    :52020DC0301
    European Environment Agency (2020) Carbon capture and storage could also impact air
    pollution, published: 17.11.2011, updated: 23.11.2020,
    https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/carbon-capture-and-storage-could
    European Environment Agency (2017) Energy and climate change, published:
    29.08.2017, https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2017/articles/energy-and-climate-change
    Howarth, R.W. & Jacobson, M.Z. (2021) How green is blue hydrogen?, in:
    Energy Science % Engineering, published: 12.08.2021,
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ese3.956
    Geoengineering in the European Union 23/39
    Chapter 4
    ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2021) Geoengineering Map, accessed: 08/2021,
    https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
    European Commission (2019) The European Green Deal, published: 11.12.2019,
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1588580774040&uri=CELEX-
    :52019DC0640
    European Commission (2021) CORDIS database : FP1 programme,
    https://cordis.europa.eu/search/en
    European Commission (2021) Horizon Europe, accessed: 08/2021,
    https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/funding/funding-opportunities/fundingprogrammes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe_en
    European Commission (2021) Horizon Europe Work Programme 2021-2022, 8. Climate,
    Energy and Mobility, accessed: 09/2021, https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/wp-call/2021-2022/wp-8-climate-energy-and-mobility_horizon-2021-2022_en.pdf
    European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2021), Horizon
    Europe, published: 04.05.2021, https://op.europa.eu/en/web/eu-law-and-publications/publication-detail/-/publication/1f107d76-acbe-11eb-9767-01aa75ed71a1
    European Regulation (EU) No. 347/2013 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure, consolidated version: 31.03.2020, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
    TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02013R0347-20200331
    Chapter 5
    ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2021) Geoengineering Map, accessed: 08/2021,
    https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
    ETC Group & Heinrich Boell Foundation (2021) Geoengineering Technology Briefing:
    Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), published: January 2021, https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/carbon-capture-and-storage.pdf
    ETC Group & Heinrich Boell Foundation (2021) Geoengineering Technology Briefing:
    Carbon Capture Use and Storage (CCUS), published: January 2021, https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/carbon-capture-use-and-storage.pdf
    European Commission (2021) National energy and climate plans, accessed: September 2021, https://ec.europa.eu/info/energy-climate-change-environment/implementation-eu-countries/energy-and-climate-governance-and-reporting/national-energy-and-climate-plans_en
    European Commission (2021) National recovery and resilience plans, accessed: September 2021, https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/recovery-coronavirus/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en#national-recovery-and-resilience-plans
    UNFCCC-United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2021)
    NDC Registry (interim), accessed: September 2021,
    https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NDCStaging/Pages/All.aspx
    Geoengineering in the European Union 24/39
    Chapter 6
    ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2021) Geoengineering Map, accessed: 08/2021,
    https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
    Sources listed in annex 4
    Chapter 7
    Böttner, et al. (2020) Greenhouse gas emissions from marine decommissioned hydrocarbon wells: leakage detection, monitoring and mitigation strategies, in: International
    Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 100, September 2020,
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2020.103119
    ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2021) Geoengineering Map, accessed: 08/2021,
    https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
    ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2021) What is Geoengineering?, accessed:
    08/2021, https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/what-is-geoengineering/
    ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2021) Carbon Capture and Storage (technology
    briefing), published: 26.04.2021,
    https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2021/04/carbon_capture_storage/
    European Commission (2021) European Green Deal: Commission aims for zero pollution
    in air, water and soil, published: 12.05.2021,
    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_2345
    European Commission (2021) On a new approach for a sustainable blue economy in
    the EU. Transforming the EU’s Blue Economy for a Sustainable Future, published:
    17.05.2021, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2021:240:FIN
    European Commission (2021) Forging a climate-resilient Europe – the new EU Strategy
    on Adaptation to Climate Change, published: 24.02.2021,
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2021:82:FIN
    European Commission (2020) Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability. Towards a Toxic-Free Environment, published: 14.10.2020,
    https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/chemicals/2020/10/Strategy.pdf
    European Commission (2020) on an EU strategy to reduce methane emissions, published:
    14.10.2020, https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/eu_methane_strategy.pdf
    European Commission (2019) European Green Deal, published: 11.12.2019,
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1588580774040&uri=CELEX-
    :52019DC0640
    European Environmental Agency (2021) Energy in Europe – State of play, published:
    29.08.2017, updated: 11.05.2021,
    https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2017/articles/energy-in-europe-2014-state-1
    European Environmental Agency (2021) Global and local: secure and affordable energy,
    published: 29.08.2017, updated: 11.05.2021,
    https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2017/articles/global-and-local-secure-and
    European Environmental Agency (2021) The challenge of reducing industrial pollution,
    published: 15.10.2020, updated: 17.05.2021, https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2020/articles/the-challenge-of-reducing-industrial-pollution
    Geoengineering in the European Union 25/39
    European Environmental Agency (2019) Black carbon: Better monitoring needed to assess health and climate change impacts, published: 10.12.2013, updated: 10.12.2019,
    https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/black-carbon-better-monitoring-needed
    Geomar (2020) New study confirms extensive gas leaks in the North Sea, news release,
    published: 30.07.2020, https://www.geomar.de/en/news/article/neue-studie-bestaetigt-umfangreiche-gasleckagen-in-der-nordsee
    Umweltbundesamt (2021) Die Treibhausgase, published: 05.07.2021,
    https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/klima-energie/klimaschutz-energiepolitik-in-deutschland/treibhausgas-emissionen/die-treibhausgase
    Annexes
    Annex 1 (chapter 4, figure 2): Number and contents of EU-funded geoengineering projects
    FP
    No. of
    (known)
    projects
    Biochar BECCS CO2-
    capture CCS CCUS DAC
    Marine GE
    (e.g., Ocean
    fertilisation)
    SRMrelated
    projects
    Other
    Number
    of trial
    sites
    FP1
    (1984-1987)
    0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    FP2
    (1987-1991)
    0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    FP3
    (1991-1994)
    6 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
    FP4
    (1994-1998)
    4 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 3
    FP5
    (1998-2002)
    10 0 0 2 7 1 0 0 0 0 4
    FP6
    (2002-2006)
    16 0 0 7 8 0 0 0 0 1 5
    FP7
    (2007-2013)
    36 2 0 8 16 4 1 0 4 1 13
    FP8
    (2014-2020)
    55 0 1 10 16 23 0 2 0 3 41
    Sources:
    ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2021) Geoengineering Map, accessed: May 2021,
    https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
    European Commission (2021) CORDIS database, https://cordis.europa.eu/search/en
    Geoengineering in the European Union 26/39
    Annex 2 (chapter 4, figure 3): EU funding for GE projects in FP’s 5 to 8
    Framework
    Programme
    (FP)
    Number of
    (known)
    GE-related
    projects
    Total FP
    budget in
    Billion €
    GE-Projects:
    Total Budget
    in Million €
    GE-Projects:
    EU-share in
    Million €
    GE-Projects:
    EU-share
    in %
    EU funding:
    share of the
    known GE
    projects
    in total FP
    budget
    FP1 0 0 0 0 0
    FP2 0 0 0 0 0
    FP3 6 not available not available not available not available
    FP4 4 not available not available not available not available
    FP5 10 15.00 28.07 14.65 52.17% 0.10%
    FP6 16 17.50 119.12 65.10 54.65% 0.37%
    FP7 36 50.50 377.40 172.54 45.72% 0.34%
    FP8 (H2020) 55 70.20 456.77 335.21 73.39% 0.48%
    Sources:
    ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Foundation (2021) Geoengineering Map, accessed: May 2021,
    https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
    Fabbi, F., European Commission, Press and Communication Directorate-General (2002) The 6t
    h EU Research
    Framework Programme ready for the kick-off: Commissioner Philippe Busquin outlines the way forward, published:
    21.06.2002,
    https://www.innovations-report.de/sonderthemen/veranstaltungsnachrichten/bericht-61941/
    Federal Ministry of Education and Research (2021) Budget Horizont 2020, accessed: May 2021,
    https://www.horizont2020.de/einstieg-budget.htm
    Frima, H., European Commission (2007) The EU 7th Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development
    and Demonstration, published: 09.10.2007, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiEvfHcqq7wAhVCzaQKHToBDEcQFjACegQIBRAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fescies.org%2Fdownload%2FwebDocumentFile%3Fid%3D7197&usg=AOvVaw3m2oQYxsEyw0cRhFquVTa5
    McCarthy, S., Hyperion (2000) The EU Fifth Framework Programme, accessed: May 2021,
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwifrdyEpq7wAhVKNOwKHYYpDJAQFjAEegQIAhAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hyperion.ie%2FEU%2520R%26D%-
    2520Funding.PDF&usg=AOvVaw3h04KHdKfcfOcZT3vRfWA_
    Geoengineering in the European Union 27/39
    Annex 3 (chapter 5): The role of geoengineering in national strategic plans
    Country
    Geoengineering technologies addressed
    in national
    strategic plans
    The role of geoengineering
    technologies in national strategic plans
    (NECPs, NRRPs, NDCs, where available)
    Experience with the geoengineering
    technologies identified in the national
    strategic plans
    European Member States
    Austria CCU The Austrian NECP (12/2019) proposes CCUS as a “breakthrough technology
    for industry” and suggests “greater consideration should be given to the key opportunities offered by Carbon Capture and
    Utilisation (CCU) for European industry”.
    The Austrian company AVL List GmbH
    participates in the EU-funded EcoFuel project; the project aims to develop
    fuels based on captured CO2
    .
    Belgium CCS, CCUS The Belgian NECP (12/2019) proposes the
    large petrochemical clusters in Flanders as
    “an ideal region for developing new cooperation and integrating innovative systems
    allowing tens of millions of tonnes of CO2
    to be offset, collected or sequestered, or
    transformed into useful products” and announced studies in this context as well as to
    examine CO2 capture at waste incineration
    facilities, aiming to use the captured
    CO2 “as a raw material in a circular
    economy”. The Belgian NRRP (06/2021)
    announced €10 M to demonstrate CCS/
    CCUS as well as investments in the
    infrastructure for / production of hydrogen
    in combination with CCS/CCUS.
    Belgian companies and research institutions conducted several EU-funded
    research projects on CCUS and on
    CO2 capture. The pan-European project
    STEELANOL is currently constructing a
    CCUS pilot plant at ArcelorMittal’s steel
    plant in Gent. At the same site, ArcelorMittal and LanzaTech aim to demonstrate
    CO2 capture for the production of ethanol
    and further CO2 -based chemicals.
    Bulgaria BECCS The Bulgarian NECP (undated, accessed: 08/2021) considers biomass plants
    with CCS for electricity generation.
    Bulgarian research institutions participated in pan-European research projects
    on CCS and CO2 capture. Experiences in
    connection with BECCS have not yet
    been reported.
    Croatia CCS, CCUS The Croatian NECP (12/2019) proposes a
    platform for CCS and CCUS, to evaluate
    “a) availability of a suitable location for
    storage, b) transport facilities are technically and economically feasible and
    c) upgrade of facilities for CO2 capture is
    technically and economically feasible”.
    A National Feasibility Study will look at
    “emission sources, transport, injection and
    storage of CO2
    , and the interconnection
    of the CO2 transport system with other
    EU countries” and “plans to inform the
    public about carbon dioxide capture and
    storage technology”. The costs of the
    study are estimated at HRK 1 million.
    Croatian research institutions participated in pan-European research projects on
    CCUS and CO2 storage. There are plans to
    establish a CCS project at the geothermal
    plant AAAT Geothermae in Draškovec.
    Cyprus CCS, CCU The Cypriot NECP (01/2020) proposes to
    “assess the exploitation of CCS and CCU
    technologies” and adds: “However, it has
    been noted that emerging technologies like
    hydrogen and carbon capture and storage
    have not been considered in the above scenario due to the lack of available data”.
    The Electricity Authority of Cyprus
    participated in a pan-European research
    project on CO2 capture technologies.
    Czechia CCS, CCU The Czech NECP (11/2019) proposes to
    consider “a combination of natural gas
    with CCS or CCU”.
    Czech companies and research institutions
    participated in several pan-European
    research projects related to CO2 capture
    and CCS. The depleted oilfield LBr-1,
    in Moravia, is serving as a test site for
    CO2 injections, e.g., for the pan-European
    ENOS project. Plans for a CCS project in
    Vresova have been cancelled.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 28/39
    Country
    Geoengineering technologies addressed
    in national
    strategic plans
    The role of geoengineering
    technologies in national strategic plans
    (NECPs, NRRPs, NDCs, where available)
    Experience with the geoengineering
    technologies identified in the national
    strategic plans
    European Member States
    Denmark BECCS, CCS,
    CCUS
    The Danish NECP (12/2019) states that
    “CCS needs to be demonstrated at scale”
    and that “Bioenergy should be used in
    high-value sectors (transport), and sustainability remains a challenge”. The
    Danish NRRP proposes DKK 200 million
    “for a subsidy scheme to support the
    development and demonstration of
    CO2 storage sites in depleted oil and gas
    fields in the Danish part of the North Sea”.
    The NRRP adds that “CCS is foreseen
    to contribute significantly to the achievement of Danish greenhouse gas reduction
    targets” and that “storage sites for CO2
    in depleted Danish oil and gas fields could
    play an important role in storage of CO2
    from other EU member states”. “CCUS is
    expected to be a growing industry.”
    Danish research institutions coordinated various pan-European research
    projects on CCS. A new CCS project, a
    proposal with onshore CO2 capture and
    offshore injections, has concluded a first
    feasibility study. Former plans for an
    onshore CCS project have been cancelled.
    The Danish Union Engineering markets
    CCUS technology for recovering CO2
    from
    fermentation processes in breweries.
    Experiences in connection with BECCS
    have not yet been reported.
    Estonia CCS, CCUS The Estonian NECP (12/2019) states that
    “according to current knowledge, Estonia
    does not have suitable geological conditions for storing CO2
    ”. Currently, a study
    is conducted “to assess the suitability of
    different carbon capture technologies and
    develop scenarios for implementing these
    technologies in the Estonian oil shale industry”. The NECP proposes to look into
    “cooperation opportunities of the Nordic
    countries and Baltic States […] for the
    development of future technologies (energy
    storage, CCUS, hydrogen, etc.)”.
    Estonian companies and research
    institutions participated in various
    pan-European research projects on CCS
    and CCUS.
    Estonia is a member of the BASRECCS Network.
    Finland CCS, CCU The Finnish NRRP (2021) describes CCU
    and CCS as “important technologies”
    with “the potential to grow into a huge
    market”. A €156 million programme will
    be set up to encourage “the scaling up of
    hydrogen production using clean energy
    and its utilisation and of carbon dioxide
    capture and use/storage”.
    There was no reference to the use of geoengineering technologies in the European
    NDC or the Finnish NECP (12/2019).
    Finish research institutions and companies
    participated in various pan-European
    research projects on CO2 capture, CCUS
    and CCS. The Finish government financed
    research on biochar, DAC and CCUS and
    Finish companies developed CCUS and
    DAC technology. Plans for a CCS project
    have been cancelled.
    France BECCS, CCS,
    CCUS
    The French NECP (03/2020) states that
    “carbon capture and storage will only compensate for residual non-energy emissions
    and the residual emissions from fossil fuels
    that are still used for certain means of
    transport (aviation)” and that “in 2050,
    these technologies would make it possible to
    avoid around 6 MtCO2
    /year in industry and
    to achieve a dozen or so MtCO2
    each year
    in negative emissions for biomass energy
    generation installations (BECCS)”. The
    French NRRP (2021) proposes to decarbonize industry by “deploying decarbonised
    processes and carbon capture and storage
    or recovery”. In addition, the French NECP
    identified the following research and innovation requirements, among others: “carbon
    capture, storage and reuse solutions”.
    French research institutions and companies
    coordinated more than 15
    pan-European and EU-funded research
    projects on CO2 capture, CCUS and CCS,
    and conducted field tests to trial CO2
    capture and CO2 injections. French public
    funds financed additional projects, mainly
    on CCS, but also on BECCS and CCUS.
    A number of CCS projects have been
    implemented with the participation of
    companies in the energy sector.
    A CCUS pilot trial is conducted by Vicat.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 29/39
    Country
    Geoengineering technologies addressed
    in national
    strategic plans
    The role of geoengineering
    technologies in national strategic plans
    (NECPs, NRRPs, NDCs, where available)
    Experience with the geoengineering
    technologies identified in the national
    strategic plans
    European Member States
    Germany CCS, CCU,
    DAC
    The German NECP (2019) proposes to
    further develop “CCU/CCS options”. It
    states that a “vast majority of studies and
    scenarios have now confirmed that from
    today’s perspective, CCS technology is
    vital for the achievement of greenhouse
    gas neutrality by 2050”and that
    “technologies which separate carbon
    out of industrial exhaust gases and in
    particular the atmosphere are needed
    for this” The NECP adds that “research
    into carbon separation, transport,
    storage, long-term sequestration and
    use technologies will be stepped up so
    that domestic companies and research
    institutions can assume a pioneering role
    in this area”.
    Germany research institutions and
    companies coordinated more than
    15 pan-European and EU-funded
    research projects on CO2 capture,
    CCUS and CCS. The German public
    sector financed further projects, mainly
    on CCUS, CCS and DAC, often at
    industrial sites, in some cases also outside
    Germany, e.g., in Chile. Most pilot
    tests and demonstration projects were
    conducted by industry, e.g., in aviation,
    cement and further energy-intensive
    sectors. More than 50% of known
    CCS projects in Germany have been
    cancelled due to public opposition.
    Greece CCS, CCUS The Greek NECP (12/2019) proposes
    research to develop “CO2 capture, storage
    and use technologies” and “ensuring the
    capture, storage and utilisation of carbon
    dioxide from power generation plants using
    conventional fuels and industrial uses”.
    The Greek NRRP (04/2021) “contains a
    measure to develop Greece’s first carbon
    capture, utilisation and storage investment
    by developing transportation and storage
    on CO2
    into geological features.”
    Greece research institutions coordinated
    five pan-European projects on CO2 capture
    technologies and participated in various
    other pan-European research projects
    on CCS and CCUS. A hydrogen plant
    with CCS in Northern Greece has
    been proposed.
    Hungary CCS The Hungarian NECP (2019) states,
    that “power stations with CCS will be
    available only after 2030” and that
    “until CO2 capture and storage become
    economical it will probably not be
    profitable to build conventional coal-fired
    power plants in Europe”.
    Hungarian research institutions
    participated in several pan-European
    research projects on CCS, CCUS
    and DAC.
    Ireland CCS The Irish NECP (2019) proposes to
    “examine the feasibility of the utilisation
    of CCS in Ireland and to develop policy in
    the area” and “states that Carbon Capture
    and Storage (CCS) is recognised as a
    potential bridging technology that could
    support the transition to a low carbon
    economy”. The NECP adds that “Ireland
    adopted a 5-year CCS review process,
    which will inform any decision to commit
    resources to put regulatory and permitting
    systems in place” and “is currently
    assessing a project at feasibility stage
    promoted by Ervia”. The NECP proposes
    funding for various research areas, among
    them “carbon capture & storage (CCS)”.
    The Irish Department of Environment,
    Climate and Communications participated
    in a pan-European research project
    on CCS. A CCS project has been proposed
    by fossil-fuelled power companies.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 30/39
    Country
    Geoengineering technologies addressed
    in national
    strategic plans
    The role of geoengineering
    technologies in national strategic
    plans (NECPs, NRRPs, NDCs, where
    available)
    Experience with the geoengineering
    technologies identified in the national
    strategic plans
    European Member States
    Italy CCS, CCU The Italian NECP (12/2019) proposes
    to “promote the geological capture
    of CO2
    […] both in the electricity and
    industrial sectors” and to employ CO2
    “in power-to-liquid […] with
    CO2 captured from the air or derived
    from waste”.
    Italian research institutions coordinated
    more than five pan-European projects
    on CCUS and CO2 capture technologies
    and participated in further pan-European
    research projects on CCS and CCUS.
    Several pilot projects are located in Italy,
    including a CCS test site for the panEuropean ENOS project.
    Latvia CCS, CCU The Latvian NECP (11/2020) proposes
    “innovative solutions for capturing and
    reuse of carbon” and states that
    “in addition, future technologies (energy
    storage, CCU, hydrogen, etc.) will be
    sought in cooperation with the Nordic
    countries and the Baltic States”.
    Latvian research institutions participated
    in pan-European research projects on CCS
    and CCUS.
    Lithuania CCS, CCU The Lithuanian NECP (2019) states
    that it is “necessary to further
    develop carbon capture, use and
    storage technologies and to analyse
    their applications in Lithuania”.
    The proposed analysis will cover an
    “assessment of CO2
    capture, use and
    storage chain alternatives” as well as
    “a feasibility study on the application
    of CO2 capture, use and storage
    technologies in Lithuania”. The NECP
    also proposes “a detailed analysis of
    the feasibility and usefulness of projects
    implemented with other countries of
    the EU common economic area (to
    the geological structures of which the
    CO2 captured in Lithuania could be
    exported)”.
    Lithuanian research organisations
    participated in pan-European research
    projects on CCS and CCUS.
    Luxembourg – There is no reference to the use of
    geoengineering technologies in the
    European NDC, the Luxembourgian NECP (12/2018) and the Luxembourgian NRRP (06/2021).
    Information on geoengineering-related
    research activities in Luxembourg has not
    yet been reported.
    Malta – There is no reference to the use
    of geoengineering technologies
    in the European NDC,
    Malta’s NECP (12/2019) and
    Malta’s NRRP (2021).
    Information on geoengineering-related
    research activities in Malta has not yet
    been reported.
    The
    Netherlands
    CCS, CCU The Dutch NECP (11/2019) states
    that CCS is regarded “as an inevitable
    transition technology for reducing
    CO2 emissions in sectors where no
    cost-effective alternative is available in
    the short term”. The NECP proposes
    national “grants for CO2
    -reducing
    measures”, to combine CCS with
    hydrogen production, and to work “with
    other Member States
    to achieve […] the joint development
    of CCU/CCS”.
    Dutch research institutions and companies
    coordinated about 15 pan-European
    projects on CCS, CO2 capture technologies
    and CCUS, and participated in many other
    pan-European research projects. Over
    the past decade, five Dutch CCS projects
    have been cancelled, including two in the
    Rotterdam Port area. Meanwhile, there
    are new proposals for CCS projects,
    including the Porthos project at Rotterdam
    Port. Dutch companies and research
    institutions conducted various trials, e.g.,
    a CO2 capture testing campaign at
    a Tata Steel plant.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 31/39
    Country
    Geoengineering technologies addressed
    in national
    strategic plans
    The role of geoengineering
    technologies in national strategic plans
    (NECPs, NRRPs, NDCs, where available)
    Experience with the geoengineering
    technologies identified in the national
    strategic plans
    European Member States
    Poland CCS, CCU The Polish NECP (2019) points out that
    CCS technology is “recommended by the
    European Commission”, but adds that
    “however, CCS technologies have proved
    to be very difficult to apply widely”
    and that “a greater potential is seen in
    the development of carbon processing
    technologies”. The NECP also states that
    “it is not a foregone conclusion when
    these technologies will be commercially
    available, given that the last 10 years
    have not brought any significant progress,
    especially in terms of cost reduction”
    and “as no industrial installation of this
    type has yet been put into operation”.
    The NECP adds that “despite a wideranging research effort, it will be
    extremely difficult for CCS technologies
    to become commercially mature”.
    Polish research institutions and companies
    participated in about 20 pan-European
    research projects on CCS, CO2 capture
    technologies, CCUS and biochar. Polish
    coal seams and a marine site have been
    used as pilot sites for CO2 injections in
    pan-European research projects, e.g., the
    Barbara coal mine.
    Portugal – There is no reference to the use of geoengineering technologies in the European NDC, the Portuguese NECP (12/2019)
    and the Portuguese NRRP (04/2021).
    Portuguese research organisations and
    companies participated in pan-European
    research projects on CO2 capture, CCS
    and CCUS and led the pan-European research project COMET on CO2 transport
    and storage in the west Mediterranean.
    Romania CCUS The Romanian NRRP (05/2021) includes
    support for two gas-fired power plants
    with CO2 capture in Halanga and
    Constanta. The captured CO2
    is to be fed
    into greenhouses.
    There is no reference to the use of geoengineering technologies in the European NDC
    and the Romanian NECP (04/2020).
    Romanian research organisations
    participated in pan-European
    research projects on CO2 capture, CCS
    and CCUS. Plans for a CCS project have
    been cancelled.
    Slovakia CCS The Slovakian NECP (12/2019) proposes
    “projects to convert other suitable
    geological structures into underground
    gas storage facilities, respectively to use
    them in another way for energy-related
    purposes (CCS)”.
    Slovakian research organisations
    participated in pan-European
    research projects on CCS and CCUS.
    Slovenia CCS The Slovenian NECP (02/2020) states
    that “there are possibilities for CCS at
    existing power sites and also in energyintensive industry” in Slovenia and
    assumes that CCS technologies will only
    become commercially interesting, “but
    this is not expected before 2040”, if
    emission allowance prices rise significantly
    and electricity demand is not replaced by
    renewable, nuclear, or gas-fired power
    plants. The NECP stresses that “under the
    current legislation […], the injection and
    storage of carbon dioxide is prohibited in
    Slovenia”.
    Slovenian research organisations and
    companies participated in pan-European research projects on CCS, biochar
    and CCUS. A Slovenian coal mine was
    used as a test site for CO2 injections.
    Geoengineering in the European Union 32/39
    Country
    Geoengineering technologies addressed
    in national
    strategic plans
    The role of geoengineering
    technologies in national strategic
    plans (NECPs, NRRPs, NDCs,
    where available)
    Experience with the geoengineering
    technologies identified in the national
    strategic plans
    European Member States
    Spain CCS The Spanish NECP (01/2020)
    proposes “the integration of
    CO2 capture technologies to reduce
    emissions”. It suggests “promoting
    the construction of CO2 capture and
    geological storage projects”, through
    the NER 300 programme.
    Spanish research institutions and companies
    coordinated more than five pan-European
    projects on CCS, CCUS and CO2 capture
    technologies and participated in further
    pan-European research projects. Spanish
    industrial and research sites served as
    tests sites for CCS and CCUS trials, e.g.,
    the Compostilla power station and the
    IMDEA Energy Institute.
    Sweden CCS The Swedish NECP (01/2020)
    states that “capture and storage of
    carbon dioxide of fossil origin must
    be included in the measures” to
    enable Sweden to achieve its emission
    targets and adds that “CCS must be
    demonstrated on a large scale”.
    A “three-year demonstration project
    for carbon capture and storage (CCS)
    at the Preem refinery in Lysekil” will
    investigate “the possibility of setting
    up a full-scale CCS plant”.
    Swedish research institutions and companies
    coordinated pan-European projects on
    CCS, CCUS and CO2 capture technologies
    and participated in further pan-European
    research projects.
    Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the UK
    Iceland CCS, DAC The Icelandic NDC (02/2021) proposes to increase “carbon removals
    from the atmosphere”, including by
    “carbon capture and mineralization
    in rock formations (Carbfix)”.
    Reykjavik Energy led the pan-European
    research projects CarbFix and GECO and
    conducted CO2
    -injection trials, e.g., at the
    Húsmúli site. The projects combine DAC
    and CCS and there are plans to trial the
    approach on a larger-scale.
    Norway CCS The Norwegian NDC (02/2020)
    states that “economic measures like
    CO2

• taxes and emission trading are
  central to Norwegian climate policy”.
  The NDC proposes to support the “development and adoption of low emissions technologies, including carbon
  capture and storage technologies”.
  Norwegian research institutions and industry
  coordinated more than 15 pan-European
  research projects on CCS, CCUS and
  CO2 capture technologies and have carried out
  several CCS projects, including Sleipner and
  Snøhvit. A new CCS project is in preparation.
  Switzerland – There is no reference to the use of
  geoengineering technologies in the
  Swiss NDC.
  The ETH Zürich participated in pan-European
  research projects on geoengineering,
  e.g., on BECCS and CO2 storage, and
  spin-offs of the ETH developed DAC and
  CCUS technology.
  The UK CCU (?) The British NDC (12/2020) states
  that “the Welsh Government is
  investing in people to develop the
  skills needed for a low-carbon,
  circular economy” and adds that
  Northern Ireland plans a “transition
  to a low-carbon circular economy”.
  Beyond this, there is no evidence
  that geoengineering technologies
  could play a role in the UK. However,
  this contrasts with the scale of
  public funding programmes for
  geoengineering.
  UK research institutions and industry have
  coordinated more than 20 pan-European and
  EU-funded research projects on CCUS, CCS
  and CO2 capture technologies, and have participated in many further pan-European research
  projects on geoengineering. Nationally, there are
  numerous further programmes and centres in
  the UK to research, promote and establish geoengineering, including the UK Carbon Capture
  and Storage Research Centre, the UK CCS Infrastructure Fund, and the Centre of Climate
  Repair. One of the most extensive publicly funded
  programmes is the UK Greenhouse Gas Removal
  Programme. Although more than 10 CCS projects have already failed in the UK, major
  CCS projects are in the pipeline, supported by
  public funds, including the Acorn CCS project
  and HyNet North West project.
  Geoengineering in the European Union 33/39
  Annex 4 (chapter 6): European lobby groups working on the issue of geoengineering
  Lobby
  group
  Founded
  in
  Head
  office
  Advocates
  for the
  following GE
  technologies
  Goals Members/
  funding Further information
  BASRECCS 2014/15 various:
  http://
  basrec.
  net/basrec-members/
  CCS in the
  Baltic Sea
  countries
  Initiated by BASREC (Baltic
  Sea Region Energy Cooperation).
  The networks’ goal is to support
  the exploration and gradual
  implementation of CCS in the
  Baltic Sea countries and to
  strengthen regional cooperation.
  Funding: Global
  CCS Institute,
  CCSP-Carbon
  Capture
  and Storage
  Program,
  Nordic Council
  of Ministers,
  Baltic Sea
  Region Energy
  Cooperation
  (BASREC)
  https://www.bcforum.
  net/, https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
  ggr/basreccs-baltic-searegion-network-for-ccs
  Carbon
  Drawdown
  Initiative
  Carbdown
  GmbH
  2020 Registered in
  Fürth,
  Germany
  BECCS,
  CCUS
  (synfuels)
  DAC,
  Enhanced
  weathering
  The corporation aims to ensure
  that projects in the following
  geoengineering fields are
  (further) developed: DAC,
  Enhanced weathering with
  olivine or serpentine, BECCS,
  and CO2
  -based synfuels. To
  achieve these goals, the company
  grants financial support to
  geoengineering companies. In
  addition, the corporation is
  involved in public and political
  work, e.g., as a founding member
  of the Negative Emissions
  Platform.
  Founded by
  Dirk Paessler
  and directed in
  cooperation with
  Ralf Steffens.
  Information on
  the funding is not
  available.
  https://www.carbon-drawdown.de/
  home-en, https://map.
  geoengineeringmonitor.
  org/other/carbon-drawdown-initiative-carbdown-gmbh
  Carbon
  Removal
  Advocacy
  Europe
  2020/21 Based
  in UK
  BECCS, DAC The group aims to “advocate
  for policy change to provide
  critical research and deployment
  incentives to scale up carbon
  removal; coordinate among
  funders, ENGOs, industry, and
  government to build a thriving
  European CDR ecosystem;
  engage with the public and
  community leaders to explore
  the benefits and potential
  risks of CDR and enable wellinformed decision making”. The
  organisation “already raised
  over £ 2,700,000 in funding
  commitments and built a network
  of partners and allies across
  Europe.”
  Funding &
  expert partners:
  Carbon180,
  Quadrature
  Climate
  Foundation,
  Climate
  Pathfinders
  Foundation,
  Grantham
  Environmental
  Trust, Oxford
  NetZero, Oxford
  University.
  https://cdradvocacy.
  org/?utm_medium=email&_
  hsmi=121470622&_
  hsenc=p2ANqtz-QiFOF_PrIz9VxpQtcRXGVd-wSAXpu8_zweSxYslIspPYG-R982IxGbr0PyRY28gpN6OU3tIWCD9BSK2xsL4XcfnvZhg&utm_content=121471195&utm
  source=hs_email
  Geoengineering in the European Union 34/39
  Lobby
  group
  Founded
  in
  Head
  office
  Advocates
  for the
  following GE
  technologies
  Goals Members/
  funding Further information
  CCUS
  Projects
  Network
  Formed as
  “European
  CCS
  Demonstration Project
  Network”
  in 2009;
  renamed in
  2018.
  Not available
  CCS, CCUS The network aims to support industrial projects
  related to CCS and CCUS,
  e.g., by sharing information
  and learning from each
  other. The networks secretariat “works closely with
  the European Commission
  and the Network’s Steering
  Committee to ensure that
  members’ needs and interests are provided for while
  supporting the EU’s climate
  action ambitions”.
  The European Union
  has provided financial
  support to the network
  through an FP7 project and appears to
  continue its financial
  support. In the early
  years, the network was
  managed by the Australian-based Global
  CCS Institute. Today
  the network is managed by its members,
  which include SINTEF,
  TNO, Gassnova, Tata
  Steel, Drax, Port of
  Rotterdam, CarbFix,
  Leilac,… (https://www.
  ccusnetwork.eu/network-members)
  https://www.ccusnetwork.eu/about-network, FP7-project:
  https://cordis.
  europa.eu/project/
  id/296013, https://
  map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/other/
  ccus-projects-network
  CCUS –
  UK Action
  Plan &
  CCUS
  Advisory
  Group
  Since 2018,
  advisory
  group since
  2019.
  UK
  ministry
  for
  Energy
  and Clean
  Growth
  CCUS The UK Ministry for
  Energy and Clean Growth
  launched the “UK Action
  Plan” for CCUS. In 2019,
  the Ministry announced
  the formation of a CCUS
  Advisory Group, to help
  deliver the CCUS action
  plan. The Group consists of
  experts in industry, finance,
  and policy and includes
  representatives from Shell,
  BP, Tata Steel, Drax, and
  National Grid.
  The CCUS Advisory
  Group received £ 1 M
  of funding from the
  UK Government and
  industry.
  https://www.gov.
  uk/government/
  publications/the-ukcarbon-capture-usage-and-storage-ccusdeployment-pathway-an-action-plan,
  https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
  other/ccus-uk-actionplan
  Centre for
  Climate
  Repair at
  Cambridge
  (CCRC)
  Launched in
  2019
  Cambridge
  University, UK
  DAC, Ocean
  fertilization,
  Marine cloud
  brightening,
  Enhanced
  freezing
  The CCRC states the following goals: to reduce
  greenhouse gas emissions,
  remove greenhouse gases
  from the atmosphere and
  restore broken climate
  systems. In order to reach
  these goals, the centre
  looks into geoengineering
  technologies such as DAC,
  Ocean fertilization, Marine
  cloud brightening or Enhanced freezing. In June
  2021, the CCRC founded
  the Climate Crisis Advisory
  Group (CCAG). The CCAG
  aims to advice the public,
  governments and financial
  institutions.
  Launched by Cambridge University.
  £ 2.1 million gift
  from Jamie Arnell in
  May 2021.
  https://www.climaterepair.eng.cam.
  ac.uk/, https://map.
  geoengineeringmonitor.org/other/centrefor-climate-repair-atcambridge-(ccrc)
  Geoengineering in the European Union 35/39
  Lobby
  group
  Founded
  in
  Head
  office
  Advocates
  for the
  following GE
  technologies
  Goals Members/
  funding
  Further
  information
  Coalition
  for
  Negative
  Emissions
  2020 Based in
  the UK
  BECCS,
  Biochar,
  DACCS,
  Enhanced
  weathering
  “The Coalition for
  Negative Emissions
  has the expertise,
  experience and skill
  to deliver negative
  emissions on a global
  scale. We are calling
  on those that can
  support us to do so.”
  Drax, Velocys, Carbon
  Engineering, Carbon Removal
  Centre, CBI, Carbon Capture
  and Storage Association,
  Climeworks, Energy U.K.,
  Heathrow, International
  Airlines Group, U.K. National
  Farmers Union,…(https://
  coalitionfornegativeemissions.
  org/who-we-are/)
  https://coalitionfornegativeemissions.
  org/who-we-are/,
  http://biomassmagazine.com/
  articles/17440/
  drax-velocys-help-launch-coalition-for-negative-emissions
  CO2
  GeoNet EUfunded
  project:
  2004.
  Association:
  2008.
  Project:
  Natural
  Environment
  Research
  Council,
  UK. Today,
  the association is
  based in
  Orléans
  Cedex,
  France.
  CCS, geological storage
  of CO2
  “CO2
  GeoNet is the
  European scientific
  body on CO2
  geological
  storage.” Among the
  ambitions: “Be the
  preferred source of
  impartial scientific and
  technical information
  and advice for the
  European Union,
  industry, regulators,
  the general public
  and other CCS
  stakeholders”.
  The association started as a
  pan-European FP6 research
  initiative, funded with € 6
  million (total budget: €9.18
  million). The association
  currently comprises 27
  research institutes from 21
  European countries, among
  them ETH Zürich, SINTEF,
  TNO, Helmholtz Centre
  Potsdam, Imperial College
  London, IFPEN,…
  (http://www.co2geonet.com/
  about-us/)
  http://www.co2geonet.com/aboutus/, https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.
  org/other/co2geonet-network
  ECCSELRICO
  network
  2015 Established by
  the EU,
  registered
  in Norway,
  at the
  Norwegian
  University
  of Science
  and Technology
  (NTNU),
  Trondheim,
  Norway.
  CCS, CCUS ECCSEL “is the
  European Research
  Infrastructure for CO2
  Capture, Utilisation,
  Transport and Storage
  (CCUS). Our vision
  is to enable low to
  zero CO2
  emissions
  from industry and
  power generation
  to combat climate
  change. Our aim is
  to enhance European
  science, technology
  development,
  innovation and
  education in the field
  of CCUS.” (ECCEL
  = European Carbon
  Dioxide Capture and
  Storage Laboratory
  Infrastructure, ERIC
  = European Research
  Infrastructure
  Consortium)
  Established with EU funding
  (€3.25 million, FP8-H2020).
  Five member countries:
  France, Norway, Italy, the
  Netherlands, UK.
  Among the members: TNO,
  IFPEN, CNRS, EDF, TOTAL,
  SINTEF. Members: https://
  www.eccsel.org/about-eccsel/
  eccsel-highlights/
  https://www.eccsel.
  org/, https://map.
  geoengineeringmonitor.org/other/
  eccsel-rico-network
  Geoengineering in the European Union 36/39
  Lobby
  group
  Founded
  in
  Head
  office
  Advocates
  for the
  following GE
  technologies
  Goals Members/
  funding
  Further
  information
  Eurogas ~30
  years old
  Brussels,
  Belgium
  CCS,
  low-carbon
  gas
  “Eurogas engages
  actively with its stakeholders to discuss and
  develop EU policy and
  legislation related to
  energy. To this end
  the member companies and associations
  join forces in expert
  committees and task
  forces to bring strong
  arguments and constructive proposals to
  the table.” The organisation is lobbying for
  “decarbonised gas and
  CCS technologies”.
  Among the members: EON,
  ENI, Equinor, Shell, Uniper,…
  (https://eurogas.org/about-eurogas/our-members/)
  https://eurogas.org/
  European
  Biochar
  Industry
  Consortium
  (EBI)
  2019 Freiburg
  im
  Breisgau,
  Germany
  Biochar The organisation aims
  to promote the use of
  biochar in Europe,
  to employ biochar to
  fight climate change,
  and “support/ initiate
  adaptation of legal
  regulations regarding
  production and usage
  of biochar”.
  Member organisations, please
  see: https://www.biochar-industry.com/about/
  https://www.biochar-industry.com/
  about/, https://map.
  geoengineeringmonitor.org/ggr/european-biochar-industry-consortium-(ebi)
  European
  Clean
  Hydrogen
  Alliance
  (ECH2A)
  March
  2020
  Not
  available
  Low-carbon
  hydrogen,
  based on CCS
  and pyrolysis
  (biochar)
  “The European Clean
  Hydrogen Alliance
  aims at an ambitious
  deployment of hydrogen technologies by
  2030, bringing together renewable and
  low-carbon hydrogen
  production, demand
  in industry, mobility
  and other sectors, and
  hydrogen transmission
  and distribution. With
  the alliance, the EU
  wants to build its global leadership in this
  domain, to support the
  EU’s commitment to
  reach carbon neutrality
  by 2050.”
  Initiated by the European
  Union, the European Clean
  Hydrogen Alliance brings
  together industry, national
  and local public authorities,
  civil society and other stakeholders. Please see: https://
  ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46392, among the
  members are: ArcelorMittal,
  Alstom, BP Europa, RWE,
  Schlumberger, Shell, Siemens,
  SINTEF, Uniper, Vattenfall.
  https://www.ech2a.
  eu/, https://ec.europa.eu/growth/
  industry/policy/
  european-clean-hydrogen-alliance_en,
  https://ec.europa.
  eu/docsroom/documents/46392
  European
  Zero
  Emissions
  Technology
  &
  Innovation
  Platform
  Not
  available
  Brussels,
  Belgium
  CCS, CCUS “ZEP is the technical
  adviser to the EU
  Commission on the
  deployment of CCS
  and CCU”
  Among the members: BP, ENI,
  Equinor, ExxonMobil, Port of
  Rotterdam, Shell, SINTEF,
  Northern Lights, TNO, Total,
  Bellona Foundation (https://zeroemissionsplatform.eu/aboutzep/members/)
  https://zeroemissionsplatform.
  eu/about-zep/
  zep-structure/
  Geoengineering in the European Union 37/39
  Lobby
  group
  Founded
  in
  Head
  office
  Advocates
  for the
  following GE
  technologies
  Goals Members/
  funding
  Further
  information
  GIS-Gas Infrastructure
  Europe
  Not
  available
  Brussels,
  Belgium
  “Low carbon
  hydrogen”
  with CCS
  Among the objectives:
  “development of the
  hydrogen economy
  with the existing gas
  infrastructure and via
  the development of
  innovative project”,
  “low-carbon gases”.
  “GIE closely collaborates with many
  stakeholders in the
  community to ensure
  a responsible and sustainable future for the
  European infrastructure industry, and to
  increase our positive
  contributions.”
  “67 member companies from
  27 countries, encompassing
  operators of gas infrastructures across Europe” https://
  www.gie.eu/dna/members/
  https://www.gie.eu/
  GasNaturally
  Not
  available
  Not
  available
  “Low carbon
  hydrogen”
  with CCS
  GasNaturally is a
  partnership of eight
  associations from
  across the whole
  gas value chain. The
  organisation advocates
  for “clean hydrogen
  and CCS for Europe”
  and for large-scale
  deployment of CCS in
  Europe.
  Members: Eurogas, European
  Gas Research Group, Gas
  Infrastructure Europe (GIE),
  International Association of
  Oil and Gas Producers
  (IOGP),International Gas
  Union (IGU), Liquid Gas
  Europe, Marcogaz, NGVA
  Europe
  https://gasnaturally.
  eu/about-gas/cleanhydrogen-and-ccsfor-europe/
  Hydrogen
  Council
  2017 Brussels,
  Belgium
  “Low carbon
  hydrogen”
  with CCS
  Aims to supply
  low-carbon hydrogen
  at scale. According to
  the Hydrogen Council
  “low-carbon hydrogen
  supply at scale is economically and environmentally feasible”.
  Lobbying platform with ~100
  industry members, among
  them AirLiquide, ALSTOM,
  BP, Equinor, Linde, Microsoft,
  Shell, Siemens, Total,
  ThyssenKrupp, Uniper,…
  https://hydrogencouncil.com/en/
  Hydrogen
  Europe
  Since
  2014,
  possibly
  longer
  Brussels,
  Belgium
  “Low carbon
  hydrogen”
  with CCS
  Hydrogen Europe
  presents the interests
  of “the industry and
  national association
  members covering the
  entire hydrogen value
  chain.” At the same
  time, it partners with
  the European Commission as a research
  body, in the European
  Joint Undertaking on
  Hydrogen. Hydrogen
  Europe members
  contributed to the
  research activities.
  Lobbying platform with nearly
  200 industry members.
  https://www.hydrogeneurope.eu/
  Geoengineering in the European Union 38/39
  Lobby
  group
  Founded
  in
  Head
  office
  Advocates
  for the
  following GE
  technologies
  Goals Members/
  funding
  Further
  information
  Negative
  Emissions
  Platform
  (NEP)
  2020 Registered
  in
  Brussels,
  as a
  Belgian
  company
  BECCS,
  Biochar,
  CCUS (fuels,
  chemicals,
  materials),
  DAC/DACCS,
  Enhanced
  weathering
  on land and
  in the oceans
  NEP aims to draw
  the attention of policy
  makers and the public
  to the aforementioned
  geoengineering approaches
  and calls for further
  research to investigate the
  potential, costs and side
  effects of the
  approaches as well as
  (financial) incentives
  for so-called “negative
  emissions”.
  Among the members:
  Climeworks, Carbon
  Drawdown Initiative,
  Carbon Engineering,
  Carbyon, Global
  Thermostat, Fieldcode, Air
  Capture, CarbonFuture,
  Drax, Carbfix, Project
  Vesta, European Biochar
  Industry, ClimatePartners,
  Stockholm exergi, 44.01,
  Repair CO2
  capture,…
  https://www.negative-emissions.org/,
  https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
  other/negative-emissions-platform
  OHB’s geoengineering
  network
  2021 OHB SE,
  Bremen,
  Germany
  “Space-based
  geoengineering”
  “OHB System AG, a
  subsidiary of the German
  space and technology
  group OHB SE, has joined
  forces with eight research
  institutes from five different countries to establish
  a competence network
  on the subject of spacebased geoengineering.”
  “The research areas that
  are covered range from
  aerospace engineering,
  atmospheric research and
  climate modelling to communication sciences and
  ethics. In addition to building up sound knowledge on
  climate change and geoengineering, the objectives of
  the consortium also include
  the exchange and open discussion with other experts,
  political decision-makers
  and the general public.”
  “Participating institutions
  include the University
  of Bremen (Center of
  Applied Space Technology
  and Microgravity
  (ZARM) and Institute for
  Theoretical Philosophy),
  the Alfred Wegener
  Institute Bremerhaven
  (Paleoclimate Dynamics),
  Cranfield University
  (Astrodynamics and
  Mission Design), TU Delft,
  the University of Patras
  (Applied Mechanics
  Laboratory), NHL
  Stenden (Communications
  and Multimedia Design),
  the University of Utrecht
  (Institute of Marine and
  Atmospheric Research)
  and the University of
  Applied Sciences Wiener
  Neustadt (Aerospace
  Engineering).”
  https://www.ohb.
  de/en/news/2021/
  ohb-establishes-geoengineering-network
  Scottish
  Carbon
  Capture
  & Storage
  (SCCS)
  partnership
  2005 Edinburgh,
  UK
  CCS, CCUS “We carry out strategic
  and innovative research
  across the full CCS
  chain, including CO2
  capture engineering,
  transportation, storage,
  utilisation and impact
  analyses. Our researchers
  are engaged in economic,
  legal and regulatory
  studies and consultation
  work.” “Enhancement
  and promotion of
  SCCS research and
  development capacity
  and knowledge exchange
  to a global audience of
  researchers, industry and
  governments.”
  Funded by the Scottish
  Funding Council (SFC),
  the European Regional Development Fund
  (ERDF), Scottish Government. Some members
  of the advisory board are
  affiliated with TOTAL UK
  and Shell.
  https://sccs.org.uk/,
  https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
  other/scottish-carbon-capture-storage-(sccs)
  Imprint
  Editor: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung European Union, Rue du Luxembourg 47-51,
  BE-1050 Brussels
  Lisa Tostado, Head of International Climate, Trade and Agricultural Policy Programme
  Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung European Union, Brussels
  E Lisa.Tostado@eu.boell.org
  Martin Keim, Head of the European Energy Transition Programme
  Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung European Union, Brussels
  E Martin.Keim@eu.boell.org
  Place of publication: https://eu.boell.org/
  Release date: November 2021
  Layout: Micheline Gutman, Muriel sprl
  Cover picture: © Malte Reimold – pixabay.com
  License: Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0),
  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
  The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect
  the views of the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung.