Question

above denmarks nini oil field in the north sea, the greensand future project plans to inject liquefied co2 into depleted reservoirs 1,800 meters below the seabed, eventually burying up to 8 million tons a year. geologists report that the sandstone pores and overlying seal rocks appear tight enough to trap the gas permanently, and the eu now counts offshore storage toward its broader net zero strategy. yet global emissions are about 38 billion tons of co2 annually, and environmental groups warn that ccs captures only a tiny fraction of this while consuming additional fossil energy. they argue that treating projects like greensand as a broad climate solution could slow deep emissions cuts by letting many industries rely on future storage instead of reducing fuel use now. which finding from later climate policy research, if true, would most directly support critics claim that large scale deployment of projects like greensand risks delaying emissions cuts across the wider economy rather than accelerating them? a an integrated assessment study compares scenarios in which offshore ccs remains cheap and widely available versus restricted to a few hard to abate sectors; in the wide access scenario, heavy industry and power producers invest less in efficiency and renewables, global fossil fuel use stays substantially higher, and cumulative co2 emissions by 2050 end up 10 to 15 percent above the restricted ccs scenario despite similar amounts of co2 being stored underground. b a decades long monitoring program at greensand finds no measurable co2 leakage, stable reservoir pressures, and minimal additional energy use for compression and injection, confirming that the site is a geologically secure and technically efficient storage option for captured emissions. c a comparative analysis of national climate plans shows that countries with large, low cost storage capacity adopt stricter overall emissions caps and phase out coal faster than countries without ccs options, leading to lower cumulative emissions even after accounting for the extra energy needed to run capture plants. d surveys in several european countries reveal that most citizens mistrust ccs and prefer renewables, and that public opposition to new co2 pipelines has delayed or canceled multiple storage projects, forcing governments to rely more heavily on direct regulations to cut fossil fuel use.

Explanation:

To support the critics' claim that large - scale deployment of projects like Greensand delays emissions cuts, we need to find evidence that shows such deployment leads to less effort in reducing emissions elsewhere.

• Option A: In the scenario where offshore CCS (like Greensand) is widely available, heavy industry and power producers invest less in efficiency and renewables, global fossil fuel use stays higher, and cumulative CO₂ emissions by 2050 are higher than in the restricted CCS scenario. This shows that relying on CCS (large - scale deployment of projects like Greensand) leads to less investment in real emission - reducing measures and higher emissions, directly supporting the critics' claim.
• Option B: This option only shows that Greensand is a secure and efficient storage option, which does not support the idea that it delays emissions cuts.
• Option C: This option shows that countries with CCS options have better emission - cutting results, which goes against the critics' claim.
• Option D: This option is about public mistrust and opposition to CCS projects, not about whether CCS deployment delays emissions cuts across the economy.

Answer:

A. An integrated assessment study compares scenarios in which offshore CCS remains cheap and widely available versus restricted to a few hard to abate sectors; in the wide access scenario, heavy industry and power producers invest less in efficiency and renewables, global fossil fuel use stays substantially higher, and cumulative CO₂ emissions by 2050 end up 10 to 15 percent above the restricted CCS scenario despite similar amounts of CO₂ being stored underground.