Community compensation in the context of Carbon Capture and Storage: Current debates and practices

Societal opposition has the potential to slow down the implementation of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). One of the difficulties is that the perceived benefits associated with a CCS facility for local communities tend to be low compared to its perceived burdens. As is the case for other low carbon technologies, community compensation (or community benefits) has been suggested as a way to restore this perceived imbalance. A diverse literature has looked into the role of community compensation across various land uses and research fields. Synthesis is limited, while at the same time, the provision of community compensation in practice is moving from an ad hoc to a more institutionalized approach. Therefore, it is important to take stock of the literature. This paper provides a review of the community compensation literature in the form of four debates, drawing together environmental social science research on different low carbon technologies (e.g. CCS, renewable energy). In addition, current practices in community compensation for four European countries are discussed. The two parts of this paper are brought together in a set of lessons for the provision of community compensation for future CCS projects; in turn, suggestions for further research are made to address remaining knowledge gaps

Review of sustainability assessment approaches based on life cycles

Many different approaches have been developed to quantify and evaluate sustainability. Here a review is performed on sustainability assessment based on Life Cycle Thinking, which mostly means Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA). Until the end of 2018, 258 publications can be found, from which 146 include a case study. The highest number of publications appeared between 2016 and 2018 and, compared to the years before 2016, the number of authors has increased. However, in recent years the focus has been more on case studies than on methodological aspects of LCSA. The presented holistic approaches for LCSA are either too broad or too narrow for scientific guidance. Therefore, many questions concerning LCSA are still open, e.g., regarding definition of sustainability dimensions and the desire or need for multi-criteria decision-analysis. An underlying problem is the lack of discussion about sustainability concepts. The momentum in the community to perform case studies for LCSA should be used to also develop more guiding principles

Social LCA for rare earth NdFeB permanent magnets

Rare earth permanent magnets are important components for modern (energy) technologies and are employed to reduce GHG emissions and combat climate change. The process of extracting these minerals from the ore has contentious economic, environmental and social implications. While the environmental impacts of their production have already been analyzed in several studies, the economic and the social perspective is still under-researched. The Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) approach employed in the present research explores whether there is a difference in social risks for rare earth permanent magnet production from three different rare earth ore production locations and the associated value chains. While one is located completely in China, another is composed of processes in Australia and Malaysia. The third process chain combines processes in the United States and Japan. The Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment (PSILCA) 2.0 database is used to assess the social implications. The analysis focuses on value chain actors, a stakeholder group of great interest to businesses but often underrepresented in S-LCA research. The impact categories describing this stakeholder group pertain to issues of social responsibility along the value chain, fair competition and corruption. Overall, the US value chain indicates the lowest level of social risk along the supply chain. However, in order to gain a deeper understanding of the social risks a sectoral and geographical analysis is conducted. Across all three cases, the mineral, fossil fuel and chemical sectors are shown to be problematic

Sustainable Development Goals as a Guideline for Indicator Selection in Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment

Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) emerged as a methodology allowing a detailed representation of technologies in their processes from a life cycle perspective. To conduct a profound LCSA a plausible indicator selection is needed. From a Sustainability perspective, the currently dominant political framework is the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations. In this paper, LCSA indicators are selected based on the SDGs, comparing in a first approach the implication due to the selection based on overall goals and SDG indicators level. The applicability of this selection is tested by a case study of electrolytic hydrogen production. The analysis shows meaningful differences between the goal-based and the indicator-based assessment. Only the goal-based indicator set comprises all dimensions of sustainability