Facilitating permanent carbon storage through risk transfers? Analyzing the insurability of the carbon leakage liability
永久炭素貯留を促進するためのリスク移転？炭素漏出責任の保険可能性の分析 (AI 翻訳)
Tom C. Spencer, Jamie W. McCaughey, David Bresch, Bjarne Steffen
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
地中CO2貯留における漏出リスクの保険可能性を分析。保険経済学のフレームワークを適用し、専門家ワークショップと技術経済推計を用いて、保険化の障壁と前提条件を特定。業界全体の相関故障や段階的漏出が課題だが、適切なサイト選定や規制整備により保険可能性は妨げにならないと結論。
English
This paper analyzes the insurability of CO2 leakage liability for geological storage, applying the Berliner framework from insurance economics. Using expert workshops and techno-economic estimates, it identifies barriers such as correlated failures and gradual leakages, but finds that insurability is not a roadblock for CCS and CDR deployment. Preconditions include careful site selection and robust regulations.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本ではCCSの推進がGX政策の柱の一つであり、CO2貯留に伴う責任の明確化と保険メカニズムの整備は実装に向けた重要な論点。本論文は保険化の前提条件を整理し、日本の規制設計や事業リスク管理に示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
This paper addresses a critical gap in CCS deployment globally: how to manage leakage liability. The findings on insurability preconditions are relevant for jurisdictions developing CCS regulations, including EU, US, and Japan. It offers a structured approach to insurance design that could accelerate CCS investment.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a systematic insurance economics framework for CCS liability, useful for studying carbon storage risk governance.
🏢実務担当者:Offers guidance on risk management and insurance conditions for CCS operators and insurers.
🏛政策担当者:Highlights regulatory prerequisites for insurability, informing policy design for liability regimes.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Geological storage of CO 2 is expected to play a role in mitigating climate change, especially for carbon capture and storage (CCS) in hard-to-electrify sectors, and for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) under net-zero targets. One challenge of geological CO 2 storage is the risk that CO 2 later returns to the atmosphere. Policymakers aim to address this risk by imposing CO 2 leakage liabilities on storage operators, potentially also mandating insurance cover. However, whether such liabilities are insurable is still open given the undeveloped state of the insurance market for this risk. Here, we adapt the Berliner (1982) framework from insurance economics to this question, to consider actuarial, market, and social factors that might constitute barriers to insurability. Due to the lack of a loss history, we systematically use the upstream oil & gas industry as an analogy. Combining expert workshops and techno-economic estimates, we find two barriers: the possibility of correlated material failures across the industry and gradual leakages, which will likely have to remain uninsured initially (though increased experience will likely improve the situation). We also find three general preconditions for insurability: appropriate care in site selection, robust regulations for information sharing and risk mitigation, and limited coverage periods to exclude CO 2 price volatility. Overall, the insurability of CO 2 leakage does not appear to be a roadblock for the deployment of CCS and CDR. The future price of CO 2 emissions and removals, however, remains an important uncertainty. ‘In-kind’ insurances (based on reserve CO 2 units) are a possible way out.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2026.104746first seen 2026-05-26 04:35:30 · last seen 2026-05-27 04:32:13
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。