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.
No comments:
Post a Comment