Description: Public fear for environmental and health impacts or potential leakage of CO2 from geological reservoirs is among the reasons why over the past decade CCS has not yet been deployed on a large enough scale so as to meaningfully contribute to mitigate climate change. Storage of CO2 under the seabed moves this climate mitigation option away from inhabited areas and could thereby take away some of the opposition towards this technology. Given that in the event of CO2 leakage for sub-seabed CCS the ocean would function as buffer for receiving this greenhouse gas, rather than the atmosphere, offshore CCS could particularly address concerns over the climatic impacts of CO2 seepage. In this paper we point out that recent geological studies confirm that leakage for individual offshore CCS operations may be highly unlikely from a technical point of view, if storage sites are well chosen, well managed and well monitored. But we argue that on a global long-term scale, for an ensemble of thousands or millions of storage sites, leakage of CO2 could take place in certain cases and/or countries for e.g. economic, institutional, legal or safety cultural reasons. We investigated what the impact could be in terms of temperature increase and ocean acidification if leakage would nevertheless occur, and addressed the question what the relative roles could be of on- and offshore CCS if mankind desires to divert the atmospheric damages resulting from climate change. For this purpose, we constructed a top-down energy-environment-economy model, with which we performed a probabilistic cost-benefit analysis of climate change mitigation with on- and offshore CCS as specific CO2 abatement options. One of our main conclusions is that even if there is non-zero leakage for CCS activity on a global scale, there is high probability that both onshore and offshore CCS could – on economic grounds – still account for anywhere between 20% and 80% of all future CO2 abatement efforts under a broad range of CCS cost assumptions.

Description: Final Report, EU Concerted Action Introductions with Ships (MAS3-CT97-0111): Until recently, the importance of ballast water as a major transfer vector that affect aquatic ecosystem stability and modify biodiversity was not generally recognised, although studies on species transfer via ballast water in maritime countries have increased world-wide. Despite considerable research effort (national and international), there has been virtually no consideration of the effectiveness or standardisation of ballast water sampling methodology in order to monitor effectiveness of control measures. One key objective of the Concerted Action was to test monitoring systems for sampling ballast water. Two major intercalibration workshops compared sampling techniques. The largely varying conditions onboard ships require to develop a “tool box” rather than singling out one method, thereby combining qualitative and quantitative sample analysis for plankton species composition and abundance. The two intercalibration workshops delivered results allowing better comparisons of ship sampling studies around the world. The second key issue was to gain more insight on species composition in ballast water during ship voyages. This was achieved by ocean-going workshops (OGWs). The data obtained during five OGWs, using the “tool box” originated from European voyages (three OGWs) and during inter-ocean voyages (two OGWs). In total, approximately 700 samples were collected during more than 100 days at sea. More species and specimens were found in new ballast water, and communities were in general similar to outside seawater where ballasting took place. The highest number of phytoplankton species found was 52, including potentially toxic species. At most, 40 zooplankton taxa were found. Abundance and diversity of phyto- and zooplankton species remained fairly stable for 3-4 days, followed by an exponential decline. In some cases no living zooplankton were found after 9 days, in others about 10% of the taxa survived, remaining viable for 25 days (i.e. voyage Hong Kong – Hamburg). Sampling showed that in calm conditions phytoplankton exhibited a vertical zonation in ballast tanks. During rough weather mixing occurred causing increasing in mortality. For the first time in ballast water studies, traps were used with bait and light as attractants, catching taxa not seen in the net samples before. The effect of mid ocean exchange (MOE), recommended by International Maritime Organization (IMO) as a measure against unintentional introduction via ships, was studied. In many cases the number of taxa increased rather than declined while densities of specimens were diluted. A public awareness was launched, preparing a video, a leaflet, flyers, press releases, newsletter articles of International Aquatic Societies, an Internet homepage (visit the homepage at: http://members.aol.com/sgollasch/sgollasch/index.htm *) and several posters. A book on case histories, listing species previously introduced to European waters, was prepared especially to address harbour and regulatory authorities. Assessment of potential control measures (treatment) to reduce risks arising from ballast water releases included the evaluation and development of guidelines for ballast water treatment options. All participants provided input on references (e.g. grey literature, governmental reports, internal reports from harbour authorities, interim project reports) into a database kept by the co-ordinator. The Concerted Action reviewed and considered shipping studies both within and outside the EU. This provided a more balanced view of the state of the art and also enabled the Intercalibration workshops to consider and compare sampling methods as used throughout the world. During the CA many of these studies were completed and new ones studies commenced. It is recommended that the EU takes advantage of the well developed expertise within the network of the CA partners to gain momentum in an area where global solutions are urgently needed.