During the UN climate change conference in Durban, one of the issues on the agenda is the inclusion of CCS in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Ever since this issue first came up, in 2005 at a similar conference in Montreal, CCS in the CDM has been controversial. 

What have been the reasons for this controversy? As an observer to the process for the past six years, it is interesting to see how the motivations behind the controversy changed. At first, the reasons related partly to a lack of awareness and sufficient knowledge to estimate the consequences of CCS in the CDM, but primarily to ideology (I wrote more about this here recently). These ideological reasons related to the moral hazard of CCS, such as discussed in a recent analysis by Clive Hamilton, and an aversion to subsidising the continued use of fossil fuels. After all, the CDM is supposed to be a mechanism that assists developing countries in achieving their sustainable development goals, which according to many is hardly consistent with the prolongation of the fossil era that CCS would allow.  

Since the climate change conference in Cancun decided that CCS is eligible in the CDM provided certain conditions would be fulfilled, the discussion seems to have moved beyond ideology. It is unclear what caused this change after years of deadlock. Perhaps the approval of a methodology that allowed supercritical coal-fired power plants, without CCS, as CDM projects was the wake-up call. It indeed seems awkward that coal-fired power projects that can barely demonstrate additionality and claim to reduce emissions by a small amount are eligible, while obviously additional CCS projects that reduce emissions by a great deal are not. In any case, there seems to be a grudging, careful acceptance of CCS even by countries and NGOs who have always shown themselves opponents to the technology. Whatever made it happen, since December 2010, the discussions have focussed on more technical issues. 

During the SBSTA technical workshop on CCS in the CDM in Abu Dhabi in September, the most controversial issue became apparent: how to account for long-term liability in CCS projects in developing countries. Consider the case of a CCS project in the CDM. After site closure the liability of the project is transferred to the host country; this is common in legislation around CCS. Suppose that due to some unexpected event, seepage of CO₂ occurs at this time. Who is responsible for compensating CO₂ emissions by buying CERs or equivalent greenhouse gas reduction credits in such a case? The host country - but what if this is a poor country with internal problems and moreover no emission reduction target of itself? A project developer has already received and made money from the CERs. Overcoming ideological divides is difficult, but technical issues can also be challenging. None of the solutions to this problem are perfect, which makes deciding on this issue political (do we accept an imperfect solution for the greater good of allowing CCS in the CDM?) rather than technical. 

Sometimes the long discussions beg the question: why? The Kyoto Protocol might not get a second commitment period, leading to great uncertainties in the CER market. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme will maintain CER demand, but prices are expected to remain low for the foreseeable future. CCS in the CDM is unlikely to benefit more than a few high-purity CCS sources, such as gas-processing plants, coal-to-liquid facilities or biomass conversion plants, with nearby storage. Application in coal-fired power plants seems far away at this point, especially as we see how CCS demonstrations are running into trouble in the developed world already. 

So why all the hassle? Perhaps because of the controversy over the past years, CCS in the CDM for those favouring CCS is seen as the last bastion that needs to be conquered for CCS to be acknowledged as a mitigation option. But there are other reasons. If CCS in the CDM becomes a reality, spill-overs will occur: increased awareness and knowledge of the technology in developing countries, and ideas for how to manage CCS projects in a developing country context and how to develop legislation and account for emission reductions. Agreement in Durban is unlikely to lead to many CCS projects, but will give the option some much-needed moral support.