Perspective of CO2 capture & storage (CCS) development in Vietnam: Results from expert interviews

International audienceThis paper summarizes expert opinions regarding crucial factors that mayinfluence Vietnam’s future use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) based onface-to-face interviews in December 2013 with 16 CCS-related experts fromthe Vietnamese government, research institutes, universities and the energyindustrial sector. This study finds that financial incentives and climate policyare the most important factors for the development of CCS technologies inVietnam in the next two decades. Financial incentives involve direct subsidiesfrom the government, such as tax exemptions for land use and the importationof CCS-related equipment. In addition, all the experts agree that internationalfinancial support is important to initiate a large deployment of CCStechnologies in Vietnam by implementing demonstrative/pilot projects to proveCCS’s working efficiency

Public Preferences to CCS:How does it Change Across Countries?

AbstractThe aim of this research was to extend an Australian developed large group process which proved effective in engaging the general public on issues related to climate change, energy technologies, and the overall shift towards a low carbon society. The results from Australia, the Netherlands, Canada and Scotland found that in each of the geographic locations the context varied, and participants reported different experiences and understanding of each topic. This paper explores how context may have impacted on the results, the differences that arise and discusses the implications for policy makers and research developers

Climate scientists and the public: interactions and knowledge exchanges

Raising public awareness of climate change is crucial for transforming individual behaviours and amassing support to policy measures, which may threaten prosperity and comfort levels that came to be expected in affluent societies. Scientists are one of several agents involved in public communication of climate chang

Biochar standardization and legislation harmonization

It is a relatively new concept to use biochar as soil amendment and for climate change mitigation. For this reason, the national and supranational legislation in the EU is not yet adequately prepared to regulate both the production and the application of biochar. Driven by this “regulatory gap”, voluntary biochar quality standards have been formed in Europe with the European Biochar Certificate, in the UK with the Biochar Quality Mandate and in the USA with the IBI Standard which is intended to be used internationally. In parallel to this, biochar producers and biochar users in a number of EU countries were partly successful in fitting the new biochar product into the existing national legislation for fertilisers, soil improvers and composts. The intended revision of the EC Regulation 2003/2003 on fertilisers offers the opportunity to regulate the use of biochar at the EU level. This publication summarizes the efforts on biochar standardization which have been carried out by voluntary products standards and illustrates existing legislation in EU member states, which apply to the production and use of biochar. It describes existing and planned EU regulations, which impact biochar applications and it develops recommendations on the harmonization of biochar legislation in the EU.  First published online: 24 Jan 201

Making the Communication of CCS more "human"

CCS communication has proven a tough challenge, particularly for the difficulty in raising interest for the technology, which is still unknown to the majority of the population, and for the complexity of conveying information about its potential for reducing emissions. In this paper we present a research based effort for bringing CCS nearer to people, through visual material developed taking into account emotional needs related to the technology. The production of a short introductory film on CCS is illustrated and its testing with a sample of 700 high school students

Rethinking climate engineering categorization in the context of climate change mitigation and adaptation

The portfolio of approaches to respond to the challenges posed by anthropogenic climate change has broadened beyond mitigation and adaptation with the recent discussion of potential climate engineering options. How to define and categorize climate engineering options has been a recurring issue in both public and specialist discussions. We assert here that current definitions of mitigation, adaptation, and climate engineering are ambiguous, overlap with each other and thus contribute to confusing the discourse on how to tackle anthropogenic climate change. We propose a new and more inclusive categorization into five different classes: anthropogenic emissions reductions (AER), territorial or domestic removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (D-GGR), trans-territorial removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (T-GGR), regional to planetary targeted climate modification (TCM), and climate change adaptation measures (including local targeted climate and environmental modification, abbreviated CCAM). Thus, we suggest that techniques for domestic greenhouse gas removal might better be thought of as forming a separate category alongside more traditional mitigation techniques that consist of emissions reductions. Local targeted climate modification can be seen as an adaptation measure as long as there are no detectable remote environmental effects. In both cases, the scale and intensity of action are essential attributes from the technological, climatic, and political viewpoints. While some of the boundaries in this revised classification depend on policy and judgement, it offers a foundation for debating on how to define and categorize climate engineering options and differentiate them from both mitigation and adaptation measures to climate change

The EPSRC's policy of responsible innovation from a trading zones perspective

Responsible innovation (RI) is gathering momentum as an academic and policy debate linking science and society. Advocates of RI in research policy argue that scientific research should be opened up at an early stage so that many actors and issues can steer innovation trajectories. If this is done, they suggest, new technologies will be more responsible in different ways, better aligned with what society wants, and mistakes of the past will be avoided. This paper analyses the dynamics of RI in policy and practice and makes recommendations for future development. More specifically, we draw on the theory of ‘trading zones’ developed by Peter Galison and use it to analyse two related processes: (i) the development and inclusion of RI in research policy at the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC); (ii) the implementation of RI in relation to the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) project. Our analysis reveals an RI trading zone comprised of three quasi-autonomous traditions of the research domain – applied science, social science and research policy. It also shows how language and expertise are linking and coordinating these traditions in ways shaped by local conditions and the wider context of research. Building on such insights, we argue that a sensible goal for RI policy and practice at this stage is better local coordination of those involved and we suggest ways how this might be achieved

‘Tell me what you Think about the Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide’: Towards a Fuller Understanding of Public Perceptions of CCS

This paper argues that a focus on values, trust and context is vital to build a fuller understanding of public perceptions of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). Empirical data from interviews conducted in the UK and Italy as part of the EU FP7-funded ECO2 project is presented to illustrate how publics and stakeholders often evaluate the geological storage of carbon dioxide in terms of its relation to their broader world views, rather than purely in terms of the perceived techno-scientific risks of the technology