Case Study H- Carbon Capture and Storage in Barendrecht, Netherlands

Context

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), is a technology aimed at capturing and compressing carbon dioxide emissions produced by industrial processes or power generation and storing them underground in saline aquifers or depleted oil or gas fields. The idea of CCS dates back to the 1970s, but it took until the late 1990s for CCS technology to be deployed commercially. The IPCC’s 2005 Special Report on carbon dioxide capture and storage (Metz et al., 2005) crystallised interest in the need for, and potential of, CCS. CCS emerged as a key technology and climate change mitigation option during the mid-to-late 2000s, moving to the centre of climate policy debates, and negotiations and identified by many
governments as a core component of meeting CO2 emission reduction targets.

The initial promises and ambitions for CCS, however, largely failed to materialise, and there ensued, what Martin-Roberts et al., (2021) refer to as, a ‘lost decade’. Over the period 2009-2019, rather than a significant increase in CCS, the global number of facilities actively invested in CCS technology (early development, advanced development, under construction, or operating) declined from 77 to 65 (ibid).

One of the main barriers to the deployment of CCS, consistently identified across various countries and contexts, was negative public perceptions and the associated lack of social acceptance or licence in relation to the siting of CCS infrastructure (van Egmont, 2015).

A commonly cited example is Barendrecht in the Netherlands where local government and public opposition to a proposed CCS scheme led to the cancellation of the project, and a subsequent ruling by the Dutch government that no CCS projects would take place on-shore in the Netherlands (see Brunsting et al., 2011 and Ashworth et al., 2013).

Key Elements of Change

In 2007, having positioned CCS as an important part of its climate change and energy policy (Oltra, 2012), the Dutch Government announced a tender procedure for two CO2 storage demonstration projects worth €30 million each. Responding to the tender the Anglo-Dutch oil and gas company Shell proposed the storage of CO2 from its Pernis Refinery in two depleted natural gas fields under the nearby town Barendrecht. Shell’s proposal was successful, and in collaboration with national and regional government, it began a process of local stakeholder engagement.

The proposal however encountered significant opposition from various local actors including the local government, representatives from local political parties and citizens active in local politics, and a local protest group called ‘CO2 = NEE’ (NO to CO2). Central to local concerns and objections were issues of equity and justice. The municipality highlighted that the area had already absorbed its fair share of infrastructural projects. Many also believed that the proposal involved
an inequitable distribution of costs and benefits, with the local community bearing all the risks (associated with
CO2 transportation and storage) and costs (in terms of the potential negative impacts on health and local property values), while the project developers reaped all the benefits (not least of which the €30 million in government funding) (Oltra et al., 2012). There was also a strong sense of procedural injustice, and a distrust of both central government and Shell.

Many complained, in the first instance, about being consulted far too late in the process, and then, following central government’s decision to transfer responsibility for environmental permitting procedures from local to central government, of being excluded from the decision-making process altogether (Terwel et al., 2012). As such, many in Barendrecht felt that their concerns were being ignored and that the project was being imposed against the wishes of the local community.

Lessons for Net Zero

The Barendrecht case presents an instance where an anticipated socio-technical change did not occur and entrenched public critique and scepticism ultimately led to a policy U-turn. As such it provides some useful lessons in terms of what not to do.

In Barendrecht, while the ‘techno-economic conditions were ideal’ (van Egmond, 2015: 3), local socio-political conditions turned out to be far from favourable. This did not necessarily have to be the case, but a failure both by central government and Shell to really understand local community concerns, and engage in any meaningful dialogue with local citizens, served to strengthen local opposition. Barendrecht’s rejection of CCS was not simply based on fears of the potential risks posed to local health and house prices (though these were rational and legitimate questions) but rather on a range of broader concerns associated with issues of trust, equity and justice, all of which found some common ground around the general idea of [un]fairness.

A coalition of local mid-level actors therefore emerged strongly resistant to CCS, based on a sense that it was unfair to be chosen again, unfair to be burdened with all the risks/costs and not the benefits, and unfair not to be consulted or a key part of the decision-making process. More broadly, the failure of CCS to ‘launch’, both in the Netherlands and globally over the last decade or so, should serve as a cautionary tale. The deployment of ‘supply-side, silver-bullet technological fixes’ can be unpredictable, expensive and slow.

Elements of Societal Change

Multi-factor DRIVERS OF CHANGE

• Government policy
• Business/Commercial

Mid-level ACTORS

• Local politicians
• Local political parties
• Community groups
• Local (Municipal) government

Galvanising ISSUE

• Not as such. A negative galvanising issue can be identified. Distributional injustice and unfair
  impacts on the local community, however, united local resistance to the siting of a CCS facility.

JUSTICE Considerations

• Local community: all the risks few rewards
• Lack of procedural justice

CONTESTATIONS and CONFLICTS

• Conflict between energy company and key local community groups and representatives –
  focused on inequities in process and distribution issues

REFERENCES

Barendrecht

• Ashworth, P., Bradbury, J., Wade, S., Feenstra, C. Y., Greenberg, S., Hund, G. & Mikunda, T.
  (2012). What’s in store: lessons from implementing CCS. International Journal of Greenhouse
  Gas Control 9 402-409
• Brunsting, S., de Best-Waldhober, M., Feenstra, C. Y. & Mikunda, T. (2011). Stakeholder
  participation practices and onshore CCS: Lessons from the Dutch CCS Case Barendrecht.
  Energy Procedia 4 6376-6383
• Kuijper, I. M. (2011). Public acceptance challenges for onshore CO2 storage in Barendrecht.
  Energy Procedia 4 6226-6233
• Oltra, C., Upham, P., Riesch, H., Boso, À., Brunsting, S., Dütschke, E. & Lis, A. (2012).
  Public responses to CO2 storage sites: lessons from five European cases. Energy &
  Environment 23 (2-3) 227-248
• Terwel, B. W., ter Mors, E. & Daamen, D. D. (2012). It’s not only about safety: Beliefs
  and attitudes of 811 local residents regarding a CCS project in Barendrecht. International
  Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 41-51
• van Egmond, S. & Hekkert, M. P. (2015). Analysis of a prominent carbon storage project
  failure – The role of the national government as initiator and decision maker in the
  Barendrecht case. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 34 1-11

Other

• Bäckstrand, K., Meadowcroft, J. & Oppenheimer, M. (2011). The politics and policy of
  carbon capture and storage: Framing an emergent technology. Global Environmental
  Change 21 (2) 275-281
• Energy and Climate Change Committee (2014) Inquiry Report – Carbon Capture and Storage
• Hudson, M. (2023). Relying on carbon capture and storage may be a dangerous trap
  for UK industry The Conversation
• Martin-Roberts, E., Scott, V., Flude, S., Johnson, G., Haszeldine, R. S. & Gilfillan, S. (2021).
  Carbon capture and storage at the end of a lost decade. One Earth 4 (11) 1569-1584
• Medvecky, F., Lacey, J. & Ashworth, P. (2014). Examining the role of carbon capture
  and storage through an ethical lens. Science and Engineering Ethics 20 1111-1128
• Metz, B., Davidson, O., De Coninck, H. C., Loos, M. & Meyer, L. (2005). Cambridge:
  Cambridge University Press IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage

Picture credit: Matjaz Krivic Climate Visuals Countdown