Abstract

We have arrived at a critical juncture when it comes to understanding the numerous ways in which trade interacts with climate change and energy (trade-climate-energy nexus). Trade remains crucial for the sustainable development of the worlds greatest trading nation: China. After clarifying the linkages within the trade, climate change and energy nexus, this article delves into Chinas specific needs and interests related to trade, climate change and energy. Then it explores the ways in which trade can contribute to Chinas needs, to sustainable energy development and to the goals of the global climate agreement that is under negotiation. One main findings are China is a key participant in negotiations on trade liberalization of environmental technologies and services. These negotiations are in Chinas interests in terms of innovative industries, technological upgrading, employment and public health. China could stand up for the interests of other emerging and developing countries and serve as an example in terms of transitioning to a low-carbon economy. Beyond trade barriers issues of domestic (energy) regulation such as fossil-fuel subsidies as well as investment, competition-policy, trade-facilitation and transit issues related to clean energy need to be addressed. Building trust between relevant actors across sectors and national borders will be of the essence in order to foster long-term cooperation on technological innovation. As a way forward, different approaches towards the governance of trade and climate change will be highlighted. Besides discussing the specific aspects of Chinese participation in global trade and climate change governance, this paper aims at offering broader insights into the nexus between trade, energy and climate governance in China.

Abstract

Author(s): Oldenburg, Curtis M.; Birkholzer, Jens T. | Abstract: The Cap-and-Trade and Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) programs being administered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) include Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS) as a potential means to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, there is currently no universal standard approach that quantifies GHG emissions reductions for CCS and that is suitable for the quantitative needs of the Cap-and-Trade and LCFS programs. CCS involves emissions related to the capture (e.g., arising from increased energy needed to separate carbon dioxide (CO2) from a flue gas and compress it for transport), transport (e.g., by pipeline), and storage of CO2 (e.g., due to leakage to the atmosphere from geologic CO2 storage sites). In this project, we reviewed and compared monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) protocols for CCS from around the world by focusing on protocols specific to the geologic storage part of CCS. In addition to presenting the review of these protocols, we highlight in this report those storage-related MVA protocols that we believe are particularly appropriate for CCS in California. We find that none of the existing protocols is completely appropriate for California, but various elements of all of them could be adopted and/or augmented to develop a rigorous, defensible, and practical surface leakage MVA protocol for California. The key features of a suitable surface leakage MVA plan for California are that it: (1) informs and validates the leakage risk assessment, (2) specifies use of the most effective monitoring strategies while still being flexible enough to accommodate special or site-specific conditions, (3) allow quantification of stored CO2, and (4) offer defensible estimates of uncertainty in monitored properties. California’s surface leakage MVA protocol needs to be applicable to the main CO2 storage opportunities (in California and in other states with entities participating in California’s Cap-and-Trade or LCFS programs), specifically CO2-enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR), CO2 injection into depleted gas reservoirs (with or without CO2-enhanced gas recovery (CO2-EGR)), as well as deep saline storage. Regarding the elements of an effective surface leakage MVA protocol, our recommendations for California are that: (1) both CO2 and methane (CH4) surface leakage should be monitored, especially for enhanced recovery scenarios, (2) emissions from all sources not directly related to injection and geologic storage (e.g., from capture, pipeline transport, etc.) should be monitored and reported under a plan separate from the surface leakage MVA plan that is included as another component of the quantification methodology (QM), (3) the primary objective of the surface leakage MVA plan should be to quantify surface leakage of CO2 and CH4 and its uncertainty, with consideration of best-practices and state-of-the-art approaches to monitoring including attribution assessment, (4) effort should be made to monitor CO2 storage and migration in the subsurface to anticipate future surface leakage monitoring needs, (5) detailed descriptions of specific monitoring technologies and approaches should be provided in the MVA plan, (6) the main purpose of the CO2 injection project (CO2-EOR, CO2-EGR, or pure geologic carbon sequestration (GCS)) needs to be stated up front, (7) approaches to dealing with missing data and quantifying uncertainty need to be described, and (8) post-injection monitoring should go on for a period consistent with or longer than that prescribed by the U.S. EPA. Document type: Report

Abstract

From 2021, an increasing percentage of the carbon emission growth in international air transport will be subject to offsetting under the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). Presently, it is still unclear if, and how, the existing EU emissions trading scheme (ETS) for aviation will continue. We assess the environmental impacts of different options (not) to continue with the EU ETS for aviation alongside CORSIA, and also discuss resulting monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) requirements. Our results indicate that any form of continuation of the EU ETS would have positive environmental effects especially in the early 2020s, when the coverage and environmental impact of CORSIA, which only tackles any post-2020 emission growth in international aviation, will still be low. If, moreover, a certain failure of CORSIA Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) to actually achieve emission reduction elsewhere is assumed, the environmental net benefit of CORSIA will be even lower. From both the policy and economic perspectives, these aspects may further strengthen the need to continue with the EU ETS for aviation. Possible options are to maintain the EU ETS in operation for domestic flights only, as a complement to CORSIA, or to keep it alive even for international flights within the European Economic Area (EEA), replacing CORSIA there as an equivalent measure. Another option to increase the environmental effectiveness of CORSIA, at least to some extent, could be to voluntarily extend it to domestic EEA flights. Administrative-wise, the CORSIA MRV system could be applied to a continued EU ETS to reduce transaction costs and to assure globally similar or even identical MRV standards, e.g., with regard to exemptions and eligible fuel monitoring methods. Document type: Article