The climate is changing, the average temperature on Earth is rising, the EU is concerned and Poland is developing. Despite the fact that the country is trying to make up economically for lost time under communism, it still has to comply with a demanding EU climate policy. The task is not easy, particularly keeping in mind how heavily coal-dependent the Polish economy is. Consequently, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) appears to be a perfect solution. However, the closer the technology is examined, the more its charm fades away, as Michal Drabik explains in “Is There a Future for Carbon Capture and Storage in Poland?”. This Graduate Institute’s latest ePaper is a timely contribution to current climate change discussions which will climax in the UN summit in Paris later this year, with the goal of achieving a universal and legally binding agreement on climate change.
What is the current relevance of your research?
I am trying to uncover how decisions concerning the future of energy, particularly in the European Union, are actually made. Nowadays, fossil fuel-based energy is under ever growing pressure from much “cleaner” technologies. The latter compete with one another, each trying to win the hearts and minds of both the general public and decision-makers. Having in mind that the consequences of today’s choices on new sources of energy will be borne by generations to come, it is important to establish factors that determine their outcomes, and observe their interplay throughout the whole decision-making process. As stakes are high and multiple actors are involved, a very complex network of connections and interdependences is at play. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the choices made are at times counterintuitive. That is precisely the case of CCS in Poland, which I describe in my paper. In a country, where the energy sector is almost completely dependent on coal, virtually nobody is interested in implementing CO2 capturing technology. However, at the same time Poland is subjected to EU emission limitations. Tracing the causes of such a situation is not only interesting but also enlightening, for it touches upon important issues such as public trust, social awareness of climate change, public participation in the decision making-process, the media’s impact on public opinion, open and covert lobbying, people’s confidence in science, and so on. Consequently, exploring this field tells us a lot not only about a given society but also about the functioning of democracy in a particular local context.
What are the main advantages and disadvantages of CCS?
On the bright side, CCS allows to reconcile the rising demand for fossil fuels with the need to reduce CO2 emissions. In other words, it offers lowering emissions without “annihilating” heavily air-polluting industries.
The biggest disadvantage of CCS, in turn, is that it increases the cost of production, simultaneously reducing the efficiency of the plants equipped with capturing installations. Secondly, due to the fact that CCS relies on – and thus prolongs the use of – fossil fuels, it is not truly “eco-friendly” and therefore is often viewed as a rival rather than a supplement to renewable sources of energy. Thirdly, CCS technology has never been tested on a commercial scale, and it is actually uncertain whether it will ever achieve commercial-scale applicability. Finally, CCS is often perceived as dangerous, with the most common fear of potential CO2 leakage. While the compound itself is non-toxic, at high concentrations it may have adverse effects on human health.
As an EU member state, Poland is obliged to achieve certain climate-protection goals and CCS seems very promising in this regard. In your paper, however, you come to the conclusion that CCS implementation is not very likely in Poland. What alternatives are there for Poland?
The Polish government has recently started to focus on nuclear- and shale gas-based energy. It is planned that the first nuclear power station will become operational at the beginning of the next decade. However, as there have been many obstacles with the project, whether financial or social in nature, its timeframe has already been altered on multiple occasions. Regarding shale gas, in turn, due to the fact that local Polish deposits are still far from being commercially exploited (if ever), the situation is even more uncertain. What is certain, however, is the fact that even with the successful development of the two above-mentioned alternatives, the Polish energy sector will invariably remain chiefly oriented towards coal for many years to come. Yet, until the cost of CO2 emissions becomes truly “painful” for the polluter, the future of CCS in Poland will never be bright. As for now, the agreement reached at the EU Brussels Summit last October granted Poland 60% of all free allowance permits, effectively giving the government an additional four years to postpone any crucial decisions concerning emissions.
Later this year, the UN Climate Change Conference will be held in Paris. What will happen if this endeavor fails?
I believe that some sort of agreement will be reached. As always, however, it will be quite lenient, trying to appease all parties at the table. Yet, the fact that the world’s two greatest polluters, China and the US, have recently shown certain resolve and goodwill with regard to climate issues, gives at least some hope that meaningful commitments will actually be made. Personally though, I don’t expect any revolutionary change. At the same time, I am also far away from foretelling any environmental Armageddon in case the Paris Conference ends in a fiasco. The world will not end, and life will go on. In my opinion, as much as it is necessary to fight climate change, it is also crucial not to adopt a hysterical now-or-never viewpoint or proclaim a de facto crusade against development. It is also pointless to cry about failures. Therefore, I hope not only that governments achieve as much as possible in Paris, but also that they will continue to work on all remaining issues in the future. As Samuel Beckett said, “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”
Michal Drabik is a graduate of the Master of International Affairs programme at the Graduate Institute. He also holds a law degree from Warsaw University and an LL.M. with a specialisation in international law from the UCLA School of Law. He currently works at the International Association of Professionals in Humanitarian Assistance and Protection (PHAP) in Geneva.