Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change, which commits its Parties by
setting internationally binding emission reduction targets.
Recognizing that developed countries are principally responsible for the
current high levels of GHG emissions in the atmosphere as a result of more
than 150 years of industrial activity, the Protocol places a heavier burden on
developed nations under the principle of "common but differentiated
responsibilities."
The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and
entered into force on 16 February 2005. The detailed rules for the
implementation of the Protocol were adopted at COP 7 in Marrakesh,
Morocco, in 2001, and are referred to as the "Marrakesh Accords." Its first
commitment period started in 2008 and ended in 2012.
In Doha, Qatar, on 8 December 2012, the "Doha Amendment to the Kyoto
Protocol" was adopted. The amendment includes:

New commitments for Annex I Parties to the Kyoto Protocol who

agreed to take on commitments in a second commitment period from
1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020;

A revised list of greenhouse gases (GHG) to be reported on by Parties

in the second commitment period; and

Amendments to several articles of the Kyoto Protocol which

specifically referenced issues pertaining to the first commitment
period and which needed to be updated for the second commitment
period.

On 21 December 2012, the amendment was circulated by the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as Depositary, to all
Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in accordance with Articles 20 and 21 of the
Protocol.
During the first commitment period, 37 industrialized countries and the
European Community committed to reduce GHG emissions to an average of
five percent against 1990 levels. During the second commitment period,
Parties committed to reduce GHG emissions by at least 18 percent below
1990 levels in the eight-year period from 2013 to 2020; however, the

composition of Parties in the second commitment period is different from the

first.
The Kyoto mechanisms
Under the Protocol, countries must meet their targets primarily through
national measures. However, the Protocol also offers them an additional
means to meet their targets by way of three market-based mechanisms.
The Kyoto mechanisms are:

International Emissions Trading

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

Joint implementation (JI)

The mechanisms help to stimulate green investment and help Parties meet
their emission targets in a cost-effective way.
Monitoring emission targets
Under the Protocol, countries' actual emissions have to be monitored and
precise records have to be kept of the trades carried out.
Registry systems track and record transactions by Parties under the
mechanisms. The UN Climate Change Secretariat, based in Bonn, Germany,
keeps an international transaction log to verify that transactions are
consistent with the rules of the Protocol.
Reporting is done by Parties by submitting annual emission inventories and
national reports under the Protocol at regular intervals.
A compliance system ensures that Parties are meeting their commitments
and helps them to meet their commitments if they have problems doing so.
Adaptation
The Kyoto Protocol, like the Convention, is also designed to assist countries in
adapting to the adverse effects of climate change. It facilitates the
development and deployment of technologies that can help increase
resilience to the impacts of climate change.
The Adaptation Fund was established to finance adaptation projects and
programs in developing countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. In
the first commitment period, the Fund was financed mainly with a share of

proceeds from CDM project activities. In Doha, in 2012, it was decided that
for the second commitment period, international emissions trading and joint
implementation would also provide the Adaptation Fund with a 2 percent
share of proceeds.
The road ahead
The Kyoto Protocol is seen as an important first step towards a truly global
emission reduction regime that will stabilize GHG emissions, and can provide
the architecture for the future international agreement on climate change.
In Durban, the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced
Action (ADP) was established to develop a protocol, another legal instrument
or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention, applicable to all
Parties. The ADP is to complete its work as early as possible, but no later
than 2015, in order to adopt this protocol, legal instrument or agreed
outcome with legal force at the twenty-first session of the Conference of the
Parties and for it to come into effect and be implemented from 2020.
international Emissions Trading
Main articles: Emissions trading and Carbon emission trading
A number of emissions trading schemes (ETS) have been, or are planned to
be, implemented.
Asia Japan: emissions trading in Tokyo started in 2010. This scheme is run
by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government.
Europe

European Union: the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU

ETS), which started in 2005. This is run by the European Commission.
[61]:20

Norway: domestic emissions trading in Norway started in 2005.

[61]:21
This was run by the Norwegian Government, which is now a
participant in the EU ETS.

Switzerland: the Swiss ETS, which runs from 2008 to 2012, to coincide
with the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period.[61]:22

United Kingdom:

the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, which ran from 200206. This

was a scheme run by the UK Government, which is now a
participant in the EU ETS.[61]:19

the UK CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme, which started in 2010,

and is run by the UK Government.[61]:25

North America

Canada: emissions trading in Alberta, Canada, which started in 2007.

This is run by the Government of Alberta.[61]:22

United States:

the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which started in

2009. This scheme caps emissions from power generation in ten
north-eastern US states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Rhode Island and Vermont).[61]:24

emissions trading in California, which is planned to start in 2012.

[61]:26

the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), which is planned to start in 2012.

This is a collective ETS agreed between 11 US states and Canadian
provinces.[61]:25

Oceania

Australia: the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Reduction

Scheme (NSW), which started in 2003. This scheme is run by the
Australian State of New South Wales, and has now joined the Alfa
Climate Stabilization (ACS).[61]:19

New Zealand: the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme, which

started in 2008.[61]:23

Intergovernmental Emissions Trading

The design of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS)
implicitly allows for trade of national Kyoto obligations to occur between
participating countries (Carbon Trust, 2009, p. 24).[62] Carbon Trust (2009,
pp. 2425) found that other than the trading that occurs as part of the EU
ETS, no intergovernmental emissions trading had taken place.[62]

One of the environmental problems with IET is the large surplus of

allowances that are available. Russia, Ukraine, and the new EU-12 member
states (the Kyoto Parties Annex I Economies-in-Transition, abbreviated "EIT":
Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine)
[63]:59
have a surplus of allowances, while many OECD countries have a deficit.
[62]:24
Some of the EITs with a surplus regard it as potential compensation for
the trauma of their economic restructuring. [62]:25 When the Kyoto treaty was
negotiated, it was recognized that emissions targets for the EITs might lead
to them having an excess number of allowances.[64] This excess of allowances
were viewed by the EITs as "headroom" to grow their economies.[65] The
surplus has, however, also been referred to by some as "hot air," a term
which Russia (a country with an estimated surplus of 3.1 billion tonnes of
carbon dioxide equivalent allowances) views as "quite offensive."
Green Investment Scheme
A Green Investment Scheme (GIS) refers to a plan for achieving
environmental benefits from trading surplus allowances (AAUs) under the
Kyoto Protocol.[67] The Green Investment Scheme (GIS), a mechanism in the
framework of International Emissions Trading (IET), is designed to achieve
greater flexibility in reaching the targets of the Kyoto Protocol while
preserving environmental integrity of IET. However, using the GIS is not
required under the Kyoto Protocol, and there is no official definition of the
term.[67]
Under the GIS a Party to the Protocol expecting that the development of its
economy will not exhaust its Kyoto quota, can sell the excess of its Kyoto
quota units (AAUs) to another Party. The proceeds from the AAU sales should
be "greened", i.e. channeled to the development and implementation of the
projects either acquiring the greenhouse gases emission reductions (hard
greening) or building up the necessary framework for this process (soft
greening).

Montreal Protocol

1. INTRODUCTION

he Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (a

protocol to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone
Layer) is an international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by
phasing out the production of numerous substances believed to be
responsible for ozone depletion. The treaty was opened for signature
on September 16, 1987, and entered into force on January 1, 1989,
followed by a first meeting in Helsinki, May 1989. Since then, it has
undergone seven revisions, in 1990 (London), 1991 (Nairobi), 1992
(Copenhagen), 1993 (Bangkok), 1995 (Vienna), 1997 (Montreal), and
1999 (Beijing). It is believed that if the international agreement is
adhered to, the ozone layer is expected to recover by 2050.[1] Due to
its widespread adoption and implementation it has been hailed as an
example of exceptional international co-operation, with Kofi Annan
quoted as saying that "perhaps the single most successful international
agreement to date has been the Montreal Protocol". [2] The two ozone
treaties have been ratified by 197 states and the European Union[3]
making them the most widely ratified treaties in United Nations history.
[4]

2.OBJECTIVE

Countries ratifying the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete

the Ozone Layer commit to eliminate their production and consumption
of ozone-depleting chemicals. Developing countries which meet criteria
set by Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol benefit from a ten-year grace
period. As an implementing agency of the Multilateral Fund for the
Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, the World Bank helps client
countries accomplish their ozone protection objectives through
strategic planning, policy formulation, and technical support in project
identification, preparation and implementation.
With nearly two decades of experience, the World Bank's Montreal
Protocol program is well-established. Over 550 investment projects
have been completed in more than twenty
countries, and approximately 305,000 ODP tonnes (ozone depleting
potential--the key measure for the Protocol) have been phased out.

3.DISCUSSION

History
In 1973, the chemists Frank Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina, who were then at the
University of California, Irvine, began studying the impacts of CFCs in the Earth's atmosphere.
They discovered that CFC molecules were stable enough to remain in the atmosphere until they
got up into the middle of the stratosphere where they would finally (after an average of 50100
years for two common CFCs) be broken down by ultraviolet radiation releasing a chlorine atom.
Rowland and Molina then proposed that these chlorine atoms might be expected to cause the
breakdown of large amounts of ozone (O3) in the stratosphere. Their argument was based upon
an analogy to contemporary work by Paul J. Crutzen and Harold Johnston, which had shown that
nitric oxide (NO) could catalyze the destruction of ozone. (Several other scientists, including
Ralph Cicerone, Richard Stolarski, Michael McElroy, and Steven Wofsy had independently
proposed that chlorine could catalyze ozone loss, but none had realized that CFCs were a
potentially large source of chlorine.) Crutzen, Molina and Rowland were awarded the 1995
Nobel Prize for Chemistry for their work on this problem.
The environmental consequence of this discovery was that, since stratospheric ozone absorbs
most of the ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation reaching the surface of the planet, depletion of the
ozone layer by CFCs would lead to an in increase in UV-B radiation at the surface, resulting in
an increase in skin cancer and other impacts such as damage to crops and to marine
phytoplankton.
But the Rowland-Molina hypothesis was strongly disputed by representatives of the aerosol and
halocarbon industries. The chair of the board of DuPont was quoted as saying that ozone
depletion theory is "a science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense". Robert Abplanalp,
the president of Precision Valve Corporation (and inventor of the first practical aerosol spray can
valve), wrote to the Chancellor of UC Irvine to complain about Rowland's public statements
(Roan, p. 56.)
After publishing their pivotal paper in June 1974, Rowland and Molina testified at a hearing
before the U.S. House of Representatives in December 1974. As a result significant funding was
made available to study various aspects of the problem and to confirm the initial findings. In
1976, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a report that confirmed the
scientific credibility of the ozone depletion hypothesis.[11] NAS continued to publish assessments
of related science for the next decade.
Then, in 1985, British Antarctic Survey scientists Farman, Gardiner and Shanklin published
results of abnormally low ozone concentrations above Halley Bay near the South Pole. They
speculated that this was connected to increased levels of CFCs in the atmosphere. It took several
other attempts to establish the Antarctic losses as real and significant, especially after NASA had
retrieved matching data from its satellite recordings. The impact of these studies, the metaphor
'ozone hole', and the colourful visual representation in a time lapse animation proved shocking
enough for negotiators in Montreal to take the issue seriously.[12]

Also in 1985, 20 nations, including most of the major CFC producers, signed the Vienna
Convention, which established a framework for negotiating international regulations on ozonedepleting substances. After the discovery of the ozone hole it only took 18 months to reach a
binding agreement in Montreal.
But the CFC industry did not give up that easily. As late as 1986, the Alliance for Responsible
CFC Policy (an association representing the CFC industry founded by DuPont) was still arguing
that the science was too uncertain to justify any action. In 1987, DuPont testified before the US
Congress that "we believe that there is no immediate crisis that demands unilateral
regulation."[citation needed]
Multilateral Fund
The main objective of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol is
to assist developing country parties to the Montreal Protocol whose annual per capita
consumption and production of ozone depleting substances (ODS) is less than 0.3 kg to comply
with the control measures of the Protocol. Currently, 147 of the 196 Parties to the Montreal
Protocol meet these criteria (they are referred to as Article 5 countries).
It embodies the principle agreed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development in 1992 that countries have a common but differentiated responsibility to protect
and manage the global commons.
The Fund is managed by an Executive Committee with an equal representation of seven
industrialized and seven Article 5 countries, which are elected annually by a Meeting of the
Parties. The Committee reports annually to the Meeting of the Parties on its operations. The work
of the Multilateral Fund on the ground in developing countries is carried out by four
Implementing Agencies, which have contractual agreements with the Executive Committee:[13]

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), through the UNEP DTIE OzonAction
Programme.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO).

World Bank.

Up to 20 percent of the contributions of contributing parties can also be delivered through their
bilateral agencies in the form of eligible projects and activities.
The fund is replenished on a three-year basis by the donors. Pledges amount to US$ 2.1 billion
over the period 1991 to 2005. Funds are used, for example, to finance the conversion of existing
manufacturing processes, train personnel, pay royalties and patent rights on new technologies,
and establish national ozone offices.
Parties

As of December 29, 2012, all countries in the United Nations, the Cook Islands, Holy See, Niue
and the supranational European Union have ratified the original Montreal Protocol[14] (see
external link below), South Sudan being the last country to ratify the agreement, bringing the
total to 197. These countries have also ratified the first three amendments. The last two
amendments had as of 29 December 2012 not been ratified by 4 and 14 members respectively.[3]
Effect

Ozone-depleting gas trends

Since the Montreal Protocol came into effect, the atmospheric concentrations of the most
important chlorofluorocarbons and related chlorinated hydrocarbons have either leveled off or
decreased.[15] Halon concentrations have continued to increase, as the halons presently stored in
fire extinguishers are released, but their rate of increase has slowed and their abundances are
expected to begin to decline by about 2020. Also, the concentration of the HCFCs increased
drastically at least partly because for many uses (e.g. used as solvents or refrigerating agents)
CFCs were substituted with HCFCs. While there have been reports of attempts by individuals to
circumvent the ban, e.g. by smuggling CFCs from undeveloped to developed nations, the overall
level of compliance has been high. In consequence, the Montreal Protocol has often been called
the most successful international environmental agreement to date. In a 2001 report, NASA
found the ozone thinning over Antarctica had remained the same thickness for the previous three
years,[16] however in 2003 the ozone hole grew to its second largest size.[17] The most recent
(2006) scientific evaluation of the effects of the Montreal Protocol states, "The Montreal
Protocol is working: There is clear evidence of a decrease in the atmospheric burden of ozonedepleting substances and some early signs of stratospheric ozone recovery."[18]
Unfortunately, the hydrochlorofluorocarbons, or HCFCs, and hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, are
now thought to contribute to anthropogenic global warming. On a molecule-for-molecule basis,
these compounds are up to 10,000 times more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide. The
Montreal Protocol currently calls for a complete phase-out of HCFCs by 2030, but does not place

any restriction on HFCs. Since the CFCs themselves are equally powerful greenhouse gases, the
mere substitution of HFCs for CFCs does not significantly increase the rate of anthropogenic
global warming, but over time a steady increase in their use could increase the danger that
human activity will change the climate.[19]
Policy experts have advocated for increased efforts to link ozone protection efforts to climate
protection efforts. Policy decisions in one arena affect the costs and effectiveness of
environmental improvements in the other.

Carbon Sequestration
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a gas naturally occurring in atmosphere that allows
sunlight to reach to earth but also prevents some of the sun's heat from
radiating back into space, thus warming the planet. Scientists call this
warming the greenhouse effect. When this effect occurs naturally, it warms
the Earth enough to sustain life. In fact, if we had no greenhouse effect, our
planet would be an average temperature of minus 22 degrees Fahrenheit
(minus 30 degrees Celsius) [source: UNEP] and we all had not been in
existence to witness it.
Yes, carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect are necessary for Earth to
survive. But human inventions like power plants and transportation vehicles,
which burn fossil fuels, release extra CO2 into the air. Because we've added
(and continue to add) this carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, more heat is

stored on Earth, which causes the temperature of the planet to slowly rise, a
phenomenon called global warming.
The effects of global warming are severe. Long studies in Antarctica have
shown that in the past thousand years the planet was cooling down. It was
cooling down until about 1900 or so. And there's the temperature up there in
2009. We've warmed the globe about a degree Centigrade in the last
century. Records for similar span of time at the same place shows that rise in
temperature to about one degree to one and a half degrees Celsius caused
the ice sheet to become very dynamic and the sheet was very easily melted.
So many of us are convinced now that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is
starting to melt. This is a serious consequence.
As a matter of fact, Carbon dioxide isn't the only greenhouse gas (GHG).
Others include water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Scientists estimate that global GHG
emissions due to human activities increased 70 percent between 1970 and
2004. Carbon dioxide emissions alone grew 80 percent in the same period
[source: IPCC]. Many researchers believe that the process of carbon capture
and storage can help us to get this number down to a healthy level.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the process of capturing and storing
CO2 emissions from power plants and industrial manufacturing plants. The
captured carbon dioxide gas is compressed into a liquid form and is stored in
areas which are capable of holding the gas securely and preventing it from
leaking out (deep underground or deep in the ocean).
Carbon sequestration describes long-term storage of Carbon dioxide or other
forms of carbon to either mitigate or defer global warming and avoid
dangerous climate change. It has been proposed as a way to slow the
atmospheric and marine accumulation of GHG, which are released by
burning fossil fuels.
How to do Sequestration:
Natural methods:
The Earth has several natural methods of sequestering CO2.These methods
however, are incapable of dealing with the massive amounts of CO2 emitted
due to human activity. One of the most prevalent of these sinks is forests.
Approximately 25 percent of the CO2 emitted due to fossil fuel is
sequestered by forested areas each year. CO2 is also naturally sequestered

in soil in the form of oil organic and inorganic carbon. The natural
sequestration methods cant deal with all of the CO2 and thats why we need
newer methods of Carbon Sequestration.
Newer Methods:
Carbon Sequestration is the process of capturing carbon and storing it in a
reservoir.
Trapping Carbon Dioxide: Carbon Capture Technology
Carbon capture has actually been in use for years. The oil and gas industries
have used carbon capture for decades as a way to enhance oil and gas
recovery [source: CSS]. Only recently have we started thinking about
capturing carbon for environmental reasons. Currently, most research
focuses on carbon capture at fossil fuel-powered energy plants, the source of
the majority of man-made CO2 emissions. Many of these power plants rely
on coal to create energy, and the burning of coal emits CO2 into the
atmosphere. Some researchers envision a future where all new power plants
employ carbon capture.
There are three main steps to carbon capture and storage (CCS) -- trapping
and separating the CO2 from other gases, transporting this captured CO2 to
a storage location, and storing that CO2 far away from the atmosphere
(underground or underwater). Carbon is taken from a power plant source in
three basic ways -- post-combustion, pre-combustion and oxy-fuel
combustion.
With post-combustion carbon capture, the CO2 is grabbed after the fossil fuel
is burned. The burning of fossil fuels- produces something called flue gases,
which include CO2, water vapor, sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides. In a
post-combustion process, CO2 is separated and captured from the flue gases
that result from the combustion of fossil fuel. This process is currently in use
to remove CO2 from natural gas. The biggest benefit to using this process is
that it allows us to retrofit older power plants, by adding a "filter" that helps
trap the CO2 as it travels up a chimney or smokestack. This filter is actually a
solvent that absorbs
carbon dioxide. The solvent can later be heated, which will release water
vapor and leave behind a concentrated stream of CO2. Post-combustion
carbon capture can prevent 80 to 90 percent of a power plant's carbon
emissions from entering the atmosphere [source: GreenFacts]. But the postcombustion process requires a lot of energy to compress the gas enough for
transport.

Pre-combustion, as the name implies, involves capturing CO2 before a fossil

fuel is burned. That means the CO2 is trapped before it's diluted by other flue
gases. Coal, oil or natural gas is heated in pure oxygen, resulting in a mix of
carbon monoxide and hydrogen. This process involves extracting CO2 by
partially oxidizing the fuel in a gasifier, which results in the separation of CO2
from CO (carbon monoxide) and H2 (Hydrogen). The hydrogen can then be
used as fuel. The advantages include that the process is relatively
inexpensive. The disadvantages include that the process cannot be
retrofitted to older plants. Precombustion carbon capture is already in use for
natural gas, and can prevent 80 to 90 percent of a power plant's emissions
from entering the atmosphere [source: GreenFacts].
With oxy-fuel combustion carbon capture, the power plant burns fossil fuel in
pure oxygen instead of air, which creates CO2 and water vapor. The water
vapor is condensed leaving almost pure CO2, which can then be transported
to a storage area. Oxy-fuel combustion can prevent 90 percent of a power
plant's emissions from entering the atmosphere [source: GreenFacts]. The
advantages include an effective method of carbon capture. The
disadvantages include the cost of supplying pure oxygen.
All three of the above carbon capture processes require that the captured
CO2 be stored. Once the carbon is captured, how is it transported to a
storage location?

Transporting Carbon dioxide

The current method of transporting CO2 is through a pipeline. A CO2 pipeline
usually begins at the source of capture and travels directly to the storage
site -- although, in some cases, it might travel as far as it can in the pipe,
then transition to a tanker or ship to finish off its journey. Pipelines commonly
transport carbon dioxide in its gaseous state. A compressor "pushes" the gas
through the pipeline. Accidents with pipelines are rare, as we've found in
decades of use. Only 12 CO2 pipeline leaks occurred from 1986 to 2006, with
no human injuries reported.

Carbon Storage
There are two places we've found to store CO2 -- underground and
underwater. In fact, estimates project that the planet can store up to 10
trillion tons of carbon dioxide. This would allow 100 years of storage of all
human-created emissions [source: Science Daily].
(Though we'll obviously survive much longer than that) .

The technologies under investigation for sequestering carbon from the

atmosphere can be discussed under three main categories:
1)

Ocean Sequestration: Carbon stored in oceans through direct injection

or fertilization. PROCESS:

Dissolution: Injecting CO2 by ship or pipeline into the ocean water

column at depths of 1000 3000 m, forming an upward-plume, and the
CO2 subsequently dissolves in sea water.

Lake Deposits: Injecting CO2 directly into the sea at depths greater
than 3000 m, forming a downward-plume, delay dissolution of CO2 into
the ocean and atmosphere possibly for millennia.

Chemical Reaction: Combining CO2 with a carbonate mineral to form

bicarbonates.

ADVANTAGES:

Slow rate mixing: The surface waters and the deep ocean waters
generally mix very slowly, on the order of decades to centuries.
Injecting CO2 directly into the deep ocean would take advantage of the
slow rate of mixing, allowing the injected CO2 to remain sequestered
until the surface and deep waters mix and CO2concentrations
equilibrate with the atmosphere.
Largest active carbon sink: Oceans are at present the largest CO2 sinks
present on Earth, absorbing more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide
that humans put into the air.

2)
Geologic Sequestration: Natural pore spaces in geologic formations
serve as reservoirs for long-term carbon dioxide storage.
PROCESS:
Types of repositories for permanent sequestration:
1) oil reservoirs
2) natural gas deposits
3) unmineable coal seams
4) deep saline formations 5) shale rich in oil or gas 6) basalt

formations.

In each case, CO2 is injected in a supercritical state (a relatively dense liquid)

belowground into a porous rock formation that holds or previously held fluids.
By injecting CO2 at depths greater than 800 meters in a typical reservoir, the
pressure keeps the injected CO2 in a supercritical state and thus less likely to
migrate out of the geological formation.
ADVANTAGES:

In oil and gas reservoirs sequestration costs can be partially

offset by revenues from oil and gas production.
Oil and gas originally trapped did not escape for millions of
years.
In coal mines CO2 remains there unless the seam is
depressurized or the coal is mined.
Saline formation is having large potential storage volume and
common occurrence.

3)
Terrestrial Sequestration: A large amount of carbon is stored in soils
and vegetation, which are our natural carbon sinks.
PROCESS:-In this process CO2 from the atmosphere is absorbed by trees,
plants and crops through photosynthesis, and stored as carbon in biomass
and soils. As part of this process, the carbon present in the atmosphere as
carbon dioxide becomes part of the plant: a leaf, stem, root, etc. Long-lived
plants like trees might keep the carbon sequestered for a long period of time.
Once the tree dies, or as limbs, leaves, seeds, or blossoms drop from the
tree, the plant material decomposes and the carbon is released.
ADVANTAGES:

Sustainable reduction of CO2 without harms.

Sustainably managed forests stores carbon for decades.
provide multiple ecosystem benefits such as improved
water quality, habitat, and biodiversity.

Reclaims poorly managed lands.

Prevent soil erosion and stream sedimentation.

Increasing carbon fixation through photosynthesis, slowing down or

reducing decomposition of organic matter, and changing land use practices
can enhance carbon uptake in these natural sinks.
So we have seen how the carbon capture and storage works i.e. how the
process is done.
Lets see its effects and consequences.
Is It Okay To Do This?
Not exactly. We have advantages and disadvantages in doing this process. So
we start out with advantages.
Advantages of Carbon Sequestration:
Carbon sequestration is an effective technique for controlling global
warming, thereby capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions.
1. Decreases Carbon Content in atmosphere which was leading to global
warming.
2. Carbon Sequestration can act as a way to enhance oil and gas
recovery in oil power plants.
3. It stores the gas in a natural source used earlier for storing other
gases.
4. It is less of economic burden than finding the alternative sources of
energy.

Carbon sequestrations purpose is to provide a quick fix until other energy

sources can be developed and put into practice. Looks like it is playing its
part well. But its only the half side of story, the other half is below:
Disadvantages of Carbon Sequestration:
Yet despite all of the benefits and precautions being taken, the fact remains
that there are still too many uncertainties and potential dangers attached to
carbon sequestration and this process should not be used or promoted.
1. Even though care is taken to identify the right areas for storing the gas
underground, there is always a likelihood of the gas leaking out.
When that happens, a number of deadly changes can transpire:
a)
The leaked carbon dioxide gas which is in the liquid form can mix
with ground water. This will make the ground water extremely toxic
and unsuitable for human consumption.
b)
Gas stored below the ocean floor can leak out and increase the
carbon dioxide content in the lower layers of the ocean. This makes it
difficult for the flora and fauna thriving near the ocean surface to
adjust to the changes and as a result, the whole ecosystem is
disturbed.
c)
Leakage of the carbon dioxide gas from underground reservoirs
can lead to the replacement of oxygen gas near the earths surface
with carbon dioxide, leading to loss of plant, animal and human life in
the area.
2. High cost of the carbon sequestration process: To store carbon dioxide
gas underground, it has to be compressed into liquid form. This process
is extremely expensive and requires a lot of energy. The injected gas
also has to be monitored constantly for leakage over long periods of
time.
3. Another major issue is that excessive usage of this method slows down
the search for non-polluting sources of energy.
Yet despite all of the benefits and precautions being taken, the fact remains
that there are still too many uncertainties and potential dangers attached to
carbon sequestration and this process should not be used or promoted.
These possible threats are very important to consider, largely due to the fact
that it is likely to manifest itself into a very real problem. Carbon
sequestration has the capability of changing the chemical composition and
habitable qualities of the oceans.

These alterations might sound impossible or extreme, but they have a very
high likelihood of occurrence, and if they take place, the consequences would
be severe. Even if companies check to make sure that there are no faults or
weak spots within the areas where the CO2 would be stored, there is always
the possibility of change. The earths plates shift and move, and pressures
can build beyond expected measurements.
Not only is marine life potentially threatened by carbon sequestration, but
human life as well. If CO2 rapidly escaped from its storage pockets, it could
result in low-lying areas near the breach filling with CO2 and people
becoming asphyxiated (Dow-Jones, 3). In 1986, a large amount of CO2
exploded from Lake Nyos and more than 1,700 people died.
Ongoing Carbon Sequestration Projects:

Other Programs and Societies functioning concerning the Global

Warming: Some of them are:

UN-REDD+ Society: The United Nations Collaborative Programme on

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing
Countries.
Greenfacts.org: It states that its mission is to bring complex scientific
consensus reports on health and the environment to the reach of nonspecialists.

Futuregen is a US government project announced by President George W.

Bush in 2003; its initial plan involved the construction of a near zeroemissions coal-fueled power plant to produce hydrogen and electricity while
using carbon capture and storage.
A Case Study of Carbon Sequestration Potential of Land Use Policies
Favoring Regrowth and Long-term Protection of Temperate Forests
Recent modeling of old-growth forest carbon sequestration indicate they
continue to serve as a net sink of carbon even after maturity- sequestering
an average of 2.4 +/- 0.8 metric tons of carbon hectare-1 yr-1 and yielding a
ratio of heterotrophic respiration (Rh) to net primary production (NPP) of
approximately 0.65 +/- 0.02. These figures show the strongest correlation
amongst temperate forest regions.
One calculation is made identifying the amount of carbon sequestered
through a small scale land protection organization, yielding a net carbon
sequestration of approximately 224 metric tons of carbon per year. The other
is based on the amount of land required to offset current anthropogenic
emissions of carbon in the global carbon budget, showing approximately 235
million hectares of new forest growth would be required to offset current
global anthropogenic emissions. One implication of these calculations is the
traditional assumption of carbon neutrality increasing with age is incorrect,
suggesting mature forest protection may be a favored policy choice for
carbon sequestration strategies.

Citations and works referred: o Carbon Sequestration- How stuff works?

o University of Michigan- Carbon sequestrationHelpful

or

Harmful

Carbon

Sequestration-

Wikipedia o Dangers of Carbon SequestrationEngineering @ suite 101 o Ongoing projects

tschakert ppt o Green Facts.org o Futuregen.org o
Images Google images on Carbon Sequestration
o Other related searches on similar topics.
Conclusion:
Carbon sequestration is not a sustainable process but an escaping route. The
carbon cycle is severely damaged and carbon sequestration is no solution to
it. Conserving the forests back, restoring the ecosystem can be the only
possible solution the original problem of increased Greenhouse Gases.

As seen in the data gathered and the research conducted, carbon

sequestration does offer some benefits. It answers the immediate problem
and danger of the rising CO2 levels and is less of an economic burden than
finding alternative sources of energy. Carbon sequestration has many
negative effects too though, and they are large enough to invalidate the
benefits. Chemical alterations within the oceans, permanent damage to the
ecosystems down there, and threat of asphyxiation are only some of the
consequences we know about. Instead of investing in carbon sequestration,
we should look to other methods for sustainable energy. Wind, solar and
geothermal are all greatly untapped powers, and ones that the earth
naturally provides. And that is the lesson learned from this research: if we
want to save the earth, we must go back to the earth. It provides us
everything we need.