Carbon Capture and the Future of Environmentalism now featured online and available for pre-order

Information from Bloomsbury Academic about my forthcoming book Carbon Capture and the Future of Environmentalism has now appeared online. Info includes book summary, Table of Contents, and a blurb by Peder Anker.

CCS paper submitted to NEEN26 conference

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.

CCS paper proposal for IAEP rejected

I have been notified by the organisers of the 2026 digital conference of the International Association for Environmental Philosophy (IAEP) that my paper "The ethical case against Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)" has been rejected.

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.

#37,5

Over the last couple of days I have had half an article writing day, with work done on an article on refugees in Europe, and a little thinking concerning my planned climate ethics article and an article on friluftsliv in child protection services.

Not included in special issue on climate ethics

As mentioned in a previous post, in the end of August I prepared an abstract in relation to an upcoming special issue of The Journal of Ethics on the theme "Climate ethics: Prospects and Retrospectives", titled "The ethical case against Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)". I have now been notified that my paper has not been selected for inclusion in the special issue.

#29; 2025 by now most-productive writing year on record

Today I have finished half an article writing day, with some 1.400 words written in the process of composing an abstract prepared in relation to an upcoming special issue of The Journal of Ethics, on the theme "Climate ethics: Prospects and Retrospectives". My paper is titled "The ethical case against Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)". This was writing day #29 this Autumn (starting July 1st).

Over the last days of this week I have also made a prioritised writing plan for the rest of this Autumn.

By now (or rather by the writing day I had August 8th, when I finished the Captured manuscript) I have written more in 2025 than any previous year on record. In 2021, when I worked on the book Semiotic agency, co-written with Alexei Sharov, among other writing projects, I logged 84.739 words written. By now in 2025 I have already logged 86.459 words written, mostly owing to my work on Captured.

#55

Today I have had a book writing day, with some 600 words written on my scientific monograph Captured: CCS and the fight for the soul of the environmental movement. So far this Spring I have had 55 writing days, including 47,5 book writing days.

#23

Today, during sick leave, I have had a book writing day, with some 1.300 words written on my scientific monograph Captured: CCS and the fight for the soul of the environmental movement. So far this Spring I have had 23 writing days, including 19,5 book writing days.    

Today was the most productive writing day so far this year in terms of number of words written. By now I have written more than 40.000 words on the book manuscript.

Lecture on environmental ethics given in sustainability course

Today I have given a lecture on environmental ethics, particularly climate ethics, in the University of Stavanger´s bachelor course "Bærekraft og grønn omstilling" (Sustainability and green transition). Some 25 students attended.

Second lecture given in UIS sustainability course

Today I gave the second lecture in "Bærekraft og grønn omstilling" (Sustainability and green transition, SV100) at University of Stavanger. The topic was "Miljøetikk med særlig vekt på klimaetikk" (environmental ethics with emphasis on climate ethics). 10-11 people attended.

Chronicle with CCS criticism, replies

My chronicle "Om 10.000 år, hvem tar regningen for vår karbon­fangst og -lagring?" was published in the daily newspaper Stavanger Aftenblad November 16th. A reply, "Alt tilsier at lagring er trygt over et tidsrom på 10.000 år" by professors Helge Hellevang and Snorre Olaussen, was published November 25, to which I replied with "Om 100 år er alt glemt?", published December 2nd.

Article on CCS and generational climate justice published

My Norwegian language journal article on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) was published this week.

Reference: 

Tønnessen, Morten (2021). Karbonfangst i lys av generasjonsrettferdighet. Norsk filosofisk tidsskrift 56(2–3): 91–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1504-2901-2021-02-03-04 

The article is Open Access and thus freely available for full-text reading and download.

English language summary:

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) stands out from other climate mitigation measures by involving storage of CO2 in geological formations for several thousand years. Few if any other mitigation measures raise similar questions related to the long-term impact of the measure. This accentuates the issue of intergenerational justice in relation to CCS. Reliance on CCS represents a moral hazard, since it risks delaying and undermining the needed transition to a fossil-free energy system and society. It would also be fundamentally unjust in that it would burden future generations with much of the practical responsibility for dealing with environmental problems caused by current generations. Emphasis on intergenerational justice should lead us to commit to rapid climate gas emission reductions today rather than relying on negative emissions at some point in the future. Such an assessment is in line with central contemporary climate research as well as key norms in environmental ethics. It is also in line with some of the fundamental insights of deep ecology as developed by Arne Næss.  

Keywords: Carbon capture and storage (CCS), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), intergenerational justice, climate ethics, moral hazard, deep ecology

$41,5

Today I have had an article writing day devoted to proof-reading my Norwegian language article on CCS and climate justice ("Karbonfangst i lys av generasjonsrettferdighet"), and continuing my work on my wasted growth articles, primarily the first one, with work done on comparing wasted and wasteful growth in the Nordic countries with the performance of the USA. Some 150 words were added to the latter article manuscript. Total number of writing days this Spring is up to 41,5.

#27,5

Today I have had an article writing day, with some -500 words written net. I have looked through and made slight edits in the article now titled "Meaningful leisure in the outdoors – exploring the friluftsliv experience of adolescents at residential care", for which I am second author (first author is Joakim Jiri Haaland). I have also edited and shortened my article "Karbonfangst i lys av generasjonsrettferdighet" (CCS in light og generational justice). The former is now ready for resubmission; the latter has been resubmitted today.

Total number of writing days this Spring is up to 27,5.

#26,5

Today I have had half an article writing day devoted to editing and shortening my article on CCS and climate justice, with some 500 words deleted net. Accumulated number of writing days this Spring is up to 26,5.

#26

Today I have had half an article writing day devoted to formatting, editing and shortening my article on CCS and intergenerational justice, with some 100 words written net today. Total number of writing days so far this Spring is up to 26.

CCS article revised a second time

Yesterday I finished the second revision of my CCS paper "Karbonfangst i lys av generasjonsrettferdighet", with some 300 more words written.

#16,5

Half writing day. Almost done with the second revision of my CCS paper.

#16

Today I have had an article writing day devoted to revising my article on climate ethics and CCS, with some 200 words written. I also did some thinking and sketching related to our Semiotic agency book, specifically on the ontological nature of agents.