Development and distribution of the IEA CCS model regulatory framework
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The IEA CCS Roadmap highlights the significance that CCS will play in achieving an atmospheric CO 2 stabilisation of 450ppm. In the scenario it is based on, CCS will provide approximately 20% of the total CO 2 emissions reductions out to 2050. To achieve this contribution, an ambitious CCS growth path will be required, with around 100 projects needed globally by 2020, and over 3000 by 2050. As a result of the required CCS expansion, a number of regulatory issues associated with protecting public health, safety and the environment, as well as ensuring stewardship for permanent CO 2 storage, will need to be addressed. There is also a need to provide flexible, adaptive regulations for the first set of demonstration projects. To address these issues, governments are amending existing resource extraction or environmental impact frameworks to allow the first demonstration projects to move forward, while at the same time developing dedicated legal frameworks to facilitate CCS commercialisation for the longer-term. In some cases, project-specific regulations may also be needed. In recent y ears, the international community has amended a number of legal instruments to advance CCS development. The London Protocol was amended in 2006 to allow for offshore CO 2 storage and in 2009 to allow fo r cross -border transport of CO 2 ; in 2007, the OSPAR Convention adopted similar provisions. The UNFCCC does not include a fi rm commitment for parties with regard to CCS; however, in 2006, the IPCC released the revised Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories , which are used for calculating and reporting national GHG emissions and removals. Although not yet officially sanctioned for use, these guidelines include a complete methodology for the treatment of CCS under the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC and currently have to be used in Kyoto Protocol Annex 1 countries (industrialised), but not yet by non-Annex 1 countries (developing). In parallel, many countries are developing comprehensive domestic regulatory frameworks for CCS. Dedicated legal frameworks enable CCS activities either through licensing regimes or by providing regulatory support for the fi nancing of demonstration projects. The European Commission’s 2008 CCS Directive establishes a regulatory framework for the geological storage of CO 2 . Australia has also enacted comprehensive state and national CCS regulatory frameworks for CO 2 storage. Additionally, regulations are currently being pursued in the United States, Canada, Norway and Japan. To assist in the rapid deployment of CCS in line with the recent findings of the IEA CCS Roadmap, the IEA, with assistance from Carbon Counts, Reed Smith LLP and UCL CCLP, has developed the IEA CCS Model Regulatory Framework, which is intended to serve as a tool to assist governments around the world in the development o f national regulatory frameworks. The Model Framework draws from current CCS regulatory developments in Europe, Australia, the USA, and elsewhere, to ensure that the work done in these countries can be leveraged around the world. The IEA, through this analysis, provides non-prescriptive assistance in CCS regulatory development to countries looking to develop their own domestic framework. This paper discusses the major features of the IEA CCS Model Regulatory Framework and how it can be best distributed and used to assist in the development of regulatory frameworks in all key regions of the world.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».