30 posts for 2025 registered in Nasjonalt Vitenakriv (NVA)

I have now finished registering publications and academic activities in Nasjonalt Vitenarkiv (NVA), which has replaced Current Research Information System in Norway (CRIStin). For 2025 I registered 30 posts, which is a quite normal number of posts for me per year. Altogether, since 2012, I am registered with 417 posts, cf. my profile. Registrations for 2025 include 4 scientific conference presentations, 2 chronicles, 3 journal articles, 3 book chapters, 1 book review, 1 TV interview, and 1 encyclopedia article, among other entries.

Chapter proposal for Palgrave book "Creativity - Complexity - Intelligence"

I have just finished a chapter proposal titled "Ecosemiotic questions: Towards a comprehensive description of the complexity and creativity of life", and submitted it to the editors of the prospective book volume Creativity – Complexity – Intelligence, Semiotic Perspectives on the Emergence of Meaning (Palgrave Studies in Creativity and Culture). 

This concludes my academic writing in January, with a total of 3.186 words written.

Phenomenology paper accepted for 2026 NoSP conference (Tampere, Finland)

I have been informed by the organizers of the 2026 conference of the Nordic Society for Phenomenology (NoSP), to be held at Tampere University, in Tampere, Finland April 22–24, 2026 with the theme “Phenomenology in the Anthropocene”, that my paper “What characterizes a more-than-human phenomenology suitable for the Anthropocene?” has been accepted for oral presentation.

#10,5

Today I have had a book writing day, with CCS industry news and other climate news processed and researched. This brings the number of writing days so far this Spring up to 10,5, including 4 book writing days.

Altogether in January I had 10,5 writing days.

Proposal submitted to 2026 IAEP organizers: "The ethical case against Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)"

I have just submitted the abstract and proposal below to the organisers of the 2026 digital conference of the International Association for Environmental Philosophy (IAEP).

***

The ethical case against Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)  

SHORT ABSTRACT  

Based on ethical considerations, this paper argues against the use of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as a climate mitigation measure. CCS has become increasingly central as a proposed mitigation measure. However, despite the widespread claim and perception that CCS is a necessity, CCS as practiced to date has been found to be net CO2 additive, and the Net Zero goal has been misappropriated by fossil fuel interests. Key arguments against CCS are derived from the perspective of interspecies justice, and from the perspective of intergenerational justice and fairness. In the latter context, CCS exemplifies unfair intergenerational externalization of costs.  

PROPOSAL 

In the global discourse, CCS has become increasingly central as a proposed mitigation measure, particularly after Net Zero targets were added to the global agenda with full force with the Paris agreement. The Net Zero goal presupposes Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), which may involve the use of so-called negative emission technologies (NETs), which in turn in some cases involve CCS. The Net Zero goal has arguably been misappropriated by fossil fuel interests and their allies to promote an agenda that seeks to avoid rapidly phasing out fossil fuels. Despite the widespread claim and perception that CCS is a necessity, CCS as practiced to date has been found to be net CO2 additive (Sekera and Lichtenberger 2020). In the big picture emission reductions from CCS are uncertain, whereas research has established that CCS mitigation measures result in mitigation deterrence and climate delay.

Regrettably, CCS has not triggered much debate in climate ethics. On a general note, I find it disappointing that anthropocentric perspectives predominate in climate ethics given that some of the most prominent philosophers engaged with climate ethics, such as Dale Jamieson (2010) and Peter Singer (2009), are well-known for their work in animal ethics. Still, neither of them emphasize interspecies justice in the context of climate ethics (see also Callicott 2011). Interspecies justice is particularly relevant in ethical discussions about CCS in two ways: Firstly, in so far as CCS policies contribute to allowing continued greenhouse gas emissions and an overshoot in emissions, this will contribute to exacerbate the impact of climate change, including for non-humans. Secondly, in so far as non-humans are harmfully affected by the transportation of CO2 and long-term dedicated geological storage of CO2 in subsurface environments, this is a direct consequence of CCS policies. This point is particularly pertinent in light of recent scientific discoveries concerning life dwelling in deep-sea and subsurface environments, which include animal habitats in the subsurface (Bright, Gollner et al. 2024). Lastly, while future generations is a common concern in environmental ethics, this perspective have not received much attention in the context of CCS. With its required time horizon of at least 10,000 years for underground CO2 storages (Lindeberg 2003), CCS is a perfect example of intergenerational externalization of costs in a climate change context. This arguably makes CCS unacceptable from the perspective of intergenerational justice and fairness. In this context, the lacklustre climate effects of CCS to date, the widespread political willingness to rely on unproven technologies, and the lack of consensus among researchers on acceptable CO2 leakage rates, is especially concerning.   

REFERENCES 

Bright, M., S. Gollner et al. (2024), ‘Animal life in the shallow subseafloor crust at deep-sea hydrothermal vents’, Nature Communications, 15: 8466. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-52631-9  

Callicott, J. B. (2011), ‘The temporal and spatial scales of global climate change and the limits of individualistic and rationalistic ethics’, Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 69: 101–16. 

Jamieson, D. (2010), ‘Climate change, responsibility, and justice’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 16: 431–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9174-x  

Lindeberg, E. (2003), ‘The quality of a CO2 repository: What is the sufficient retention time of CO2 stored underground’, in J. Gale and Y. Kaya (eds), Proceedings of Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies 6th International Conference (GHGT-6), 255–60, Elsevier Science Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044276-1/50041-6  

Sekera, J. and A. Lichtenberger (2020), ‘Assessing carbon capture: Public policy, science, and societal need: Review of the literature on industrial carbon removal’, Biophysical Economics and Sustainability, 5: 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41247-020-00080-5  

Singer, P. (2009), ‘Climate change as an ethical issue’, in J. Moss (ed), Climate Change and Social Justice, 39–51, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

#9,5

Today I have had half an article writing day, with a work meeting attended in relation to the refugee-themed article I am co-writing with Maren Sagvaag Retland, "The rights and living conditions of unaccompanied minor migrants in the Schengen Area". This brings the number of writing days so far this Spring up to 9,5, including 6,5 article writing days.

#9

Today I have had an article writing day, with some 700 words written in the process of writing most of a chapter proposal, work-titled "Ecosemiotic questions: Towards a general description of the creativity of life". This brings the number of writing days so far this Spring up to 9, including 6 article writing days.