User:Quasimodo1420/Carbon capture and storage/Bibliography

You will be compiling your bibliography and creating an outline of the changes you will make in this sandbox.

Bibliography

Edit this section to compile the bibliography for your Wikipedia assignment. Add the name and/or notes about what each source covers, then use the "Cite" button to generate the citation for that source.

The colonialism of carbon capture and storage in Alberta's Tar Sands

Article discusses CCS within a settler colonization context. States that CCS locks in the harms caused by tar sands extractions and further legitimizes state control over indigenous lands, people, and resources while further delegitimizing indigenous sovereignty and meaningful land and resource decision making/control.

Criticizes the Canadian federal and Albertan provincial governments for pursuing CCS rather than increasing industry accountability, promulgating stricter emissions or other direct measures.

Towards just, responsible, and socially viable carbon removal: lessons from offshore DACCS research for early-stage carbon removal projects

Notes TBD

Contestation, contingency, and justice in the Nordic low-carbon energy transition

Discusses framework for low-carbon energy transition in Nordic countries, the conditions that facilitated this transition before global climate change recognition, and existing socio-political barriers to a full energy transition even in a region known for its progressive energy policies and advanced energy infrastructure. The article is in a peer reviewed journal and refers to several peer-reviewed articles, seemingly reputable journals, as well as national and international energy policy documents and reports.

Procedural justice in Carbon Capture & Storage

McLaren, D.P., 2012, Procedural justice in carbon capture and storage, Energy & Environment, Vol. 23, No. 2 & 3, pp. 345 - 365, http://dx.doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.23.2-3.345

• Paper argues the need for evaluation of the procedural justice (fairness of processes governing decisions) in the development pipeline for CCS projects (feasibility, siting, implementation, carbon transport/storage, monitoring). Article published within peer-reviewed academic journal.

Managing seismicity with society

Article contains relevant information to a different section of the article than the chosen content gap. That said the article is published in a peer-reviewed research journal, contains verifiable inform, and contains insights to a different aspect of the CCS article that I could also expand on related to drawbacks that are not currently well explored.

Earthquake triggering and large-scale geologic storage of carbon dioxide

Questions the feasibility of large-scale CCS implementation in the US from in a geophysical context; no social-equity or public perception discussion offered other than society questions that could arise in the event of even a small scale earthquake in the vicinity of a CCS injection site. Though the article is short, the author is well published and well-respected geophysicist with many contributions to the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of sciences of the US. This source would be more useful in expanding on the technical and geological limitations to widespread CCS deployment rather than to the society and culture aspects of the article.

Outline of proposed changes

Click on the edit button to draft your outline.

"Related impacts" section

Induced Seismicity

• Communities often experience more anxiety, fear worse than by the prospect of natural earthquakes
• Benefits and risks not evenly distributed, prompting concerns of equity and justice
• Science cannot resolve the public concern, these are key challenges to overcome in order to be implemented at a meaningful in a meaningful timeframe
• Data gap in developing accurate risk assessments for induced seismicity
• This article discusses two aspects related to one of the key risks associated with geo-energy more broadly rather than focusing solely on CCS. First, discuss relationship between public perception of induced seismicity, noting how the public can feel more negatively about man-made seismic events than natural events. Further discussion is given to the implications of this to implementing climate change mitigation techniques such as CCS at a meaningful scale and that without adequate risk communication, CCS is unlikely to provide a meaningful contribution to climate change mitigate due to this public perception barrier.

• Second, the discuss how the relative nescience of induced seismicity results in a lack of empirical data needed to develop adequate risk assessment frameworks to communicate induced seismicity risks to the public. Although somewhat brief, there is mention that many times the communities that experience the seismic events are different than the communities that benefit from the operations, raising concerns related to equity and justice

"Society and culture" section

• Social acceptance information in the current article briefly discusses public views on CCS but topics related to public perception due to lack of information could be expanded. Articles on adequate risk assessment and communication could be useful to reference here.
• The current article contains no/little information about justice or equity related to project locations that could negatively impact adjacent populations
• Draw example from Alberta tar sands CCS implementation, problematic frameworks in further embedding the state and industries into indigenous territory and resource and political sovereignty
• Nordic countries identify CCS as the most important approach to industrial decarbonization, but is not the only method the countries plan to deploy
• While touted for being ahead of the curve for low-carbon energy transitions, full implementation of their planned energy transitions could take several decades. Using this source highlights that while the use of CCS in these and other contexts may be a key component in reaching national emissions reduction targets, more immediate measures are needed that can be deployed at a meaningful scale.

Procedural justice article (McLaren, 2012)

• Discuss where and who are likely affected populations as CCS projects are implemented; who claims of injustice could be directed to (governments vs corporations). Reasoning behind claims of injustice and importance of addressing the claims could be stated
• Consumer, tax payer costs related to project implementation and how, when, and where these costs are dispersed. Describe concerns about how decentralized nature of the technology could replicate profit-driven practices seen in other decentralized utilities. Potential for levies on CCS project costs could burden energy consumers if thoughtful framework isn't adopted.
• Need for considering justice in developing regulatory and support framework around CCS; this may imply revamping how public engagement for "upstream" and "downstream" communities could be more deliberative and impactful to be a legitimate way to influence decision making.
• Engagement efforts should be evaluated to ensure that deliberations do not only consider instrumental/technical merits for implementing CCS
• Case Study example in Alberta Tar Sands based on Alexander, 2022
• Describe how CCS in tar sands extraction is used to lock in the harms caused by tar sands extractions and further legitimizes state control over indigenous lands, people, and resources while further delegitimizing indigenous sovereignty and meaningful land and resource decision making/control.
• Discuss indigenous criticisms of the Canadian federal and Albertan provincial governments for pursuing CCS rather than increasing industry accountability, promulgating stricter emissions or other direct measures.
• Justice discussion on criminalization of indigenous land defense