I have just composed and submitted the abstract below to NEEN26, the NEEN & ISEE Conference on Environmental Ethics which is to be held at Umeå University, Sweden, October 14-16th. The conference is organised by Nordic Environmental Ethics Network (NEEN) in collaboration with International Society for Environmental Ethics (European section) .
*
The ethical case against Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
CCS has become increasingly central as a proposed mitigation measure. 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 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). The Net Zero goal has arguably been misappropriated by fossil fuel interests to promote an agenda that seeks to avoid rapidly phasing out fossil fuels. It is commonly claimed that CCS is a necessity. But CCS as practiced to date has actually been found to be net CO2 additive. While emission reductions from CCS are often uncertain, research confirms that CCS mitigation measures have resulted in mitigation deterrence and climate delay. Regrettably, CCS has not triggered much debate in climate ethics, where anthropocentric perspectives – somewhat surprisingly – predominate. In ethical discussions about CCS, interspecies justice is particularly relevant 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. 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, 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 lack of consensus among researchers on what CO2 leakage rates are acceptable is especially concerning.
