NGO opinions

The environmental Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) worldwide has chosen various postitons regarding Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). Their stands stretches from seeing it is as one of several important solutions, beeing open to the potential, via having no stand,- to strong opposition and even active work against CCS.

	NRDC (USA) The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) aims to create a broad consensus that no new coal plant should be built unless it captures and stores its carbon dioxid. NRDC does not call for an absolute bar on new coal plants regardless of environmental performance. The question needs to be asked whether CCS can help to stave off climate destruction and increase the use of cleaner energy. Showing that CCS is an available tool could help convincing policymakers to oppose construction of coal plants without CCS. In addition a policy requiring CCS on new coal power plants, improves the economic competitiveness of cleaner alternatives. It can also be an additional tool to cut carbon emissions from existing plants at a more rapid pace. Read more: CCS: a piece of the puzzle Bryce's turn to get it wrong on CCS
	Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) (USA) Carbon capture and sequestration can make huge reductions in CO2 pollution. Because the transition away from coal and other fossil-based fuels will take time, EDF supports the development of technologies that substantially reduce emissions One technology that in particular has the potential to make a huge contribution in reducing CO2, is carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). While there are many challenges to CCS, including an incomplete regulatory framework, high costs and in some regions, the challenge of finding suitable storage sites, there are also opportunities. With job creation and CO2 reduction, CCS has potential to be a win-win solution for the economy and the environment. Read more: Carbon Capture and Sequestration
	World Resources Institute (WRI) (USA) WRI believes CCS is a critical option in the portfolio of solutions available to combat climate change, because it allows for significant reductions in CO2 emissions from fossil-based systems. CCS technology has progressed quickly from being a concept to a key part in proposed climate change mitigation plans. This is partly due to early successes in pilot capture demonstrations and field validation tests, where small volumes of CO2 have been injected for research purposes. It is also due in large part to the experience that has been gained injecting CO2 for enhanced oil recovery over the past three and a half decades. To achieve the potential benefits of CCS and prove that safe and permanent storage can be realized, WRI feels it is important to continue large-scale demonstration and deployment of this technology. Read more: Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Guidelines for Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport, and Storage
	Bellona (Norway) According to Bellona, CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) is a technology with a large potential for reductions in CO2 emissions by 2050, and if CCS plants are established worldwide it is possible to solve the climate challenge. Bellona believes CCS could become commercially viable from 2020 and that 90 percent of CO2 from fossil fuel power plants can be captured and safely stored underground. To realize the potential of CCS, new factories and coal and gas power plants must be built with CO2 capture plants and CO2 storage. Furthermore, existing factories and power plants must be retrofitted with CCS. Read more: Bellona CCS position Report: How to combat global warming (PDF)
	Clean Air Task Force (CATF) (USA) CATF’s Coal Transition Project is working to rapidly apply CCS technologies in the U.S. and China. While current technology can do the job, more efficient and less expensive CCS-related technologies would be highly beneficial. CCS encompasses both proven and emerging technologies that can be applied today to remove CO2 before it is released into the atmosphere. Existing coal plants must be retrofitted with CCS to reduce carbon emissions. CATF believes that these technologies, along with energy efficiency, renewables, and other carbon-free electricity sources can together bring CO2 emissions to the levels needed for climate stabilization by mid-century. Read more: Coal Transition
	Climate Institute (Australia) According to the Climate Institute in Australia, the most practical way of dealing with CO2-emissions from coal is to deploy (CCS) technologies and ensure best practice emission-reduction policies in the domestic resources sector. Along with large-scale solar and geothermal renewable technologies, a focus on emerging CCS capabilities draws on national strengths and is an appropriate contribution to global research, development and demonstration pathways for low-emission technology. Read more: Feeling the heat in Australia
	The Global CCS Institute (Australia) The Institute is a not-for-profit entity, limited by guarantee, and owned by its members, with the Australian Government initially committing AU$100 million annual funding to the organization for a four year period. The Institute brings together the public and private sectors to build and share the know-how and expertise necessary to ensure that carbon capture and storage (CCS) can make a significant impact on reducing the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. The institute works collaboratively with a number of strategic partners active in the CCS area. Read more: About the institute
	World Wildlife Fund International (WWF) (Switzerland) World Wildlife Fund International feels that whilst CCS may play an important role in reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the future, there are currently too many unanswered questions for it to be considered an immediate solution. As an organization the WWF is therefore guardedly positive towards CCS, but asks for key concerns to be resolved before CCS is deployed. However the national WWF offices are allowed to have their own opinions on the matter. Therefore both WWF UK and WWF Germany have a slightly more positive view on CCS. WWF UK calls CCS a “promising technology” but points out that “it has not yet been demonstrated on a large scale integrated with a power plant anywhere in the world.” WWF Germany names CCS as one of the key new fields of technology, especially important on the industrial sector,  in a report called “Blueprint Germany- A strategy for a climate safe 2050.” Read more: Evading capture (PDF)
	Green Alliance (UK) Green Alliance is very active on CCS in both the UK and the EU. It is very supportive of public financing and the identification of a policy framework that can deliver for all stakeholders. The Green Alliance’s ambition is to secure the action necessary to successfully deliver a CCS programme for both pre and post-combustion technologies. Read more: Climate and energy
	Pembina Institute (Canada) The Pembina Institute views CCS as one of a number of potentially effective technologies for reducing GHG emissions on the scale required to combat catastrophic climate change. It is also critical that CCS is seen as part of a portfolio of solutions. Pembina feels that the urgent need to deal with Canada’s rising emissions (up 26 per cent since 1990) compels consideration of CCS, but it is not without environmental risks and barriers to implementation. Read more: Carbon capture and storage
	Greenpeace (The Netherlands, Headquarters) Greenpeace is against CCS, claiming that the technology is unproven, risky and expensive. They find that investing in CCS  threatens to undermine the range of clean energy solutions which are available right now. Among the arguments that Greenpeace makes against CCS, is that it won’t be ready in time, it will waste energy and resources, and that storing CO2 underground could be very risky. In addition large-scale CCS applications pose significant and new liability risks, including negative impacts on human health, damage to ecosystems, groundwater contamination such as the pollution of drinking water and increased greenhouse gas emissions from leakage. Read more: CCS not going to save the climate Report: False hope – Why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate. (PDF)
	Friends of the Earth (FoE) (The Netherlands, Headquarters) As an organization, Friends of the Earth is split on the issue of CCS and there is internal disagreement as to whether CCS is a viable climate mitigating solution or not. In a couple of statements FoE International has branded CCS a “false solution.”  Friends of the Earth International is of the view that the political, technological, social and economic focus must remain focused on reducing dependence on fossil fuels and developing a low carbon economy.  However the national member groups within the network have been allowed to form their own opinion on the matter. This has resulted in some countries such as Friends of the Earth Denmark and Sweden being opposed to CCS, and the same goes for FoE Germany (BUND). Whereas FoE England, Scotland and Wales takes a more positive view stating that “Should the technical, regulatory, legal hurdles and site selection hurdles be successfully overcome, Friends of the Earth recognizes that within the UK there could be a role for carbon capture and storage as part of a transition to a low carbon economy. Friends of the Earth Norway is also positive towards CCS. Read more: Briefing note: Carbon capture and storage Report NOAH Friends of the Earth Denmark
	NABU (Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union) (Germany) NABU feels that the number of locations where the technology has been tested are still too few, the process of capturing CO2 is costly and no prediction can be made on how safe geological reservoirs for CO2will be in the long term. The possible contribution of CCS to a reduction in CO2 emissions in the future remains unclear. Therefore, NABU has backed a moratorium on the construction of new coal-fired power plants until mandatory requirements for emission reductions and minimum standards for refitting power plants as well as improving energy efficiency of the remaining fossil-fuel based power plants have been agreed. Read more: Themen: Energie
	Naturskyddsföreningen (The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, SSNC) (Sweden) The SSNC feels that CCS is still controversial due to the uncertainty in performance improvement and large expenses for project implementation and technical equipment. In addition, the organization points out that CCS hasn’t yet been subject to testing and that there are still no proven storage facilities. SSNC says that even with CCS, power production won’t be emission-free. The view is that CCS will not help in attaining long-term emissions targets, and may even prove detrimental in the longer term. Read more: Climate key issues
	The Future in our hands (FIVH) (Norway) The Future in our hands is against CCS because it claims that the technology is not yet available and still very expensive. The Future in our hands also maintains that the CO2 quota price would have to be very high in order for plants with full scale CCS technology to be built, especially before 2020. The organization feels that given all the uncertainties surrounding CCS at present, there is a large risk that the expected C02 emissions won’t occur. The organization calls for other more viable means of cutting CO2 emissions to be prioritized in the short term. Read more: Fremtiden i våre hender (In Norwegian)
	E3G (Environmental 3rd Generation) (UK, Belgium, Germany, USA) E3G believe that meeting climate targets requires clarity by 2020 about the role of CCS. This depends on ensuring that a global and European portfolio of demonstration projects takes place before 2020. E3G has worked closely on the EU public funding for demonstrations NER300 and EEPR. E3G also works on electric super and smart grid issues, innovation policy, targets policy, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and the EU Budget. Read more: A climate for European action