In the race to combat climate change, offshore carbon capture and storage (CCS) has emerged as a promising contender. But how different governance models can either propel or hinder its deployment is a question that has been scrutinized in a recent study published in the journal “Frontiers in Marine Science.” The research, led by Jinpeng Wang from the School of Law at Ocean University of China in Qingdao, compares the governance frameworks of the European Union (EU) and China, offering valuable insights for the energy sector.
The study highlights that the EU and China have taken distinct paths in governing offshore CCS projects. The EU has established a rigorous regulatory framework that governs cross-border offshore CCS projects, while China has adopted a more flexible, policy-oriented approach. “The discrepancies in governance models arise from variations in legal traditions, disparities in the legal status of marine areas hosting offshore CCS projects, and differences in involved industries,” Wang explains.
This divergence in governance models can significantly impact the commercial viability and deployment of offshore CCS projects. The study points out that the EU’s stringent regulations, while ensuring environmental safety, can sometimes slow down project deployment. On the other hand, China’s flexible policy approach can facilitate quicker deployment but may face challenges in ensuring consistent environmental standards.
The research also sheds light on the “Collingridge Dilemma,” a paradox that underscores the challenge of regulating emerging technologies. It posits that there is often a lack of information about the potential impacts of new technologies when decisions about their regulation are made. This dilemma is particularly relevant in the context of offshore CCS, where the long-term environmental impacts are not yet fully understood.
The study emphasizes the need for a tailored and balanced governance portfolio that combines legal and policy tools to effectively regulate and facilitate offshore CCS deployment. “Policy and law should act hand in hand as twin engines in a sound governance framework propelling the momentum of offshore CCS deployment forward,” Wang asserts.
The findings of this study have significant implications for the energy sector. As countries worldwide grapple with the need to reduce carbon emissions, offshore CCS is likely to play a crucial role. The insights from the EU and China can guide other countries in designing governance frameworks that balance environmental safety with commercial viability.
Moreover, the study underscores the importance of international cooperation and knowledge sharing in the field of offshore CCS. As Wang notes, “The experiences from both the EU and China underscore the significance of a tailored-made and well-balanced governance portfolio of legal and policy tools in regulating and facilitating offshore CCS deployment.”
In conclusion, this research offers a nuanced understanding of the role of governance in offshore CCS deployment. It serves as a reminder that effective governance is not just about regulations but also about creating an enabling environment for technological innovation and commercial deployment. As the world moves towards a low-carbon future, the insights from this study will be invaluable in shaping the governance frameworks that will drive the deployment of offshore CCS projects.