Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CCS: Issues in governance and ethics
Workshop Tuesday 23 September 2014, Edinburgh
www.ukccsrc.ac.uk
Introduction and Agenda.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2Delegate List.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5Speakers and Chairs.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6Clair Gough - CCS: Issues in Ethics and Governance.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9Duncan McLaren - Ethical considerations of BECCS.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17Matthew Cotton - Climate change policy and moral agency of CCS technologies.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27Leslie Mabon - Ethical dimensions of CCS: comparing Scotland and Japan.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48Karen Bickerstaff - Innovation, equity and energy system transformation: implications for CCS.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 68Heleen de Coninck - Untangling critical governance conditions for CCS.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 77Carly Maynard - Unwrapping the reasons for lack of public discussion around CCS.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 86Clair Gough - Mapping the CCS ethical landscape.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 98
CCS (carbon capture and storage) is widely proposed as a central pillar of climate mitigation portfolios (e.g. IPCC, DECC etc). However, progress in commercially establishing the technology has been slow; as well technical challenges associated with establishing a new integrated technology, factors contributing to this slow pace of development include financial constraints, long term governance issues and compliance with international law, among others. As atmospheric concentrations of CO2 continue to increase, the mitigation challenge becomes more urgent and more challenging. Even though widespread deployment of fossil CCS has not been realised, the use of CCS technology with Biomass energy is now cited as a key option for potentially delivering negative emissions in pursuit of stringent targets for atmospheric CO2 concentration (IPCC AR5). This workshop sets out to explore the key ethical and governance issues to Carbon Capture and Storage as a mitigation option in conjunction with both fossil and biomass energy, exploring the different discourses around these issues. The aim will be to open up the debate on CCS and BECCS (bio-energy with carbon capture and storage) in order to identify some of the deeper ethical and governance issues that lie behind the rhetoric. It is envisaged that this will be the first of two workshops on this topic. A follow on workshop will be convened at a later date to further unpack the issues and explore wider policy and governance implications, with a view to informing the research agenda.
AGENDA 10.00 - 10.30 Arrivals and registration 10.30 - 10.45 Welcome and introduction – Clair Gough (Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research) 10.45 - 12.30 Perspectives
Chaired by Sarah Mander (Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research) A series of brief presentations from key stakeholders covering a representative range of views on a range of issues, to cover the following broad areas: CCS technology, ethical dimensions, governance issues, BECCS and negative emissions
• Duncan McLaren (Lancaster University/former Friends of the Earth) - Ethical considerations of BECCS, and some questions arising – Duncan will be presenting virtually from Sweden The presentation will explore some ethical considerations of bioenergy with CCS, highlighting a range of possible ethical perspectives. It will consider both direct effects of BECCS with ethical implications: such as potential demands for biomass and for carbon storage capacity; and second order effects such as implications for enhanced oil recovery or of co-firing for lock-in of coal use. It will place such questions in context with reference to the climate case for negative emissions / carbon dioxide removal and the ethical implications of such pathways in comparison
with alternatives Nils Markussen (Lancaster University) - Understanding lock-in problems for (BE)CCS •governance In this presentation I will synthesise some of the insights on ‘lock-in’ from the extant literature on CCS and BECCS. I will review key terms used, like ‘carbon lock-in’, ‘technological lock-in’ and ‘sunk costs’. I will also discuss some variation in the assumptions underlying studies of lock-in and CCS. Finally I will discuss how choices regarding terminology and assumptions matters for assessment of lock-in problems for governance of CCS and BECCS.
Matthew Cotton (University of Sheffield) - Climate change policy and the moral agency of CCS •technologies Climate change raises deeply contentious ethical concerns, highlighted in the recent IPCC Working Group III’s Analysis on Climate Ethics and Equity. The report emphasises how governments need to think beyond national self-interest and to consider alternatives to economic analysis in resolving ethical dilemmas. I argue that this needs to go further to include an integrated understanding of the ethics of technological artefacts (including CCS systems) in climate policy. This is because domestic mitigation policy frequently emphasises the moral responsibility of individuals (such as that emphasised by the Act on CO2 campaign), and yet geoengineering presents the possibility of deferring moral agency to technological processes that makes behaviour change less relevant or possibly unnecessary (perhaps a “techno-moral fix”). Drawing on the work of Verbeek I examine the arguments for whether or not CCS has “artefactual moral agency” or is “value neutral”, discussing the implications of competing philosophical positions for climate mitigation policy and practice
• Leslie Mabon (Robert Gordon University) - Meeting the targets or re-imagining society? An empirical study into the ethical landscape of carbon dioxide capture and storage in Scotland Preston’s (2011) challenge to the moral presumption against geoengineering is applied to carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) in Scotland, United Kingdom. Qualitative data is analysed to assess if and how Preston’s arguments play out in practice. We argue the concepts of ‘lesser evil’ and prioritising human well-being over non-interference in natural processes do bring different value positions together in support of CCS, but that not all people see short-term
carbon abatement as the ‘least worst’ option or a suitable way to prioritise human well-being. Karen Bickerstaff (University of Exeter) - Procedural justice and energy system innovation: •implications for CCS In this intervention I explore a particular framework for embedding principles of procedural justice in energy system transformation. I consider the theory and practice of Responsible Innovation: a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view on the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process a (Von Schomberg, 2011). Drawing on research from across a number of low carbon energy domains, I consider how practices of anticipation, reflection and deliberation could support a more constructive, responsive and fairer mode of energy system innovation and change. I explore the challenges and opportunities presented by the Responsible Innovation agenda, and draw specific implications for CCS. Heleen de Coninck (Radboud University Nijmegen) - Untangling critical governance conditions •for CCS Why has progress in CCS stalled and what does that tell us about governance? A review of factors affecting CCS leads to different conclusions in different parts of the world. It can, however, not be solely reduced to a lack of public perception, high costs or the absence of political will to handle climate change. The surge of renewables has played a role, rising costs of resources and prices of fuel, the availability of shale gas in the US, the continuing economic crisis with low CO2-prices as a consequence, the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit to give a meaningful signal that the world is getting serious about CO2 emission reduction, and the lack of awareness of project developers of what communities need to accept CO2 injection in the neighbourhood. Carly Maynard (University of Edinburgh) - Unwrapping the reasons for lack of public discussion •around CCS Within the public sphere, CCS is rarely voluntarily mentioned. Indeed, simple awareness of the technology is not common among members of the public. Is this a reflection of its (un)popularity or does it mean that the public do not realise or appreciate the need for
decarbonised energy production systems? Judgements made by the public on CCS depend partly on what information is already provided to them, but there are other influential factors such as personal environment and values. The indifference to CCS technology may also be the result of the delegation of expertise by the public. Michaels discusses this delegation of responsibility by the public as a pragmatic issue, in which the public asks ‘how should they know about these issues, when there are experts at hand who can make decisions and develop policy?’ This presentation will draw on the findings of a Citizen Panel, constructed as part of the EU ECO2 project, and will consider the questions of who is responsible? What my responsibility in this? Who should decide? for CCS development and implementation.
12.30 - 13.30 LUNCH 13.30 - 13.45 Clair Gough (Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research) - Mapping the CCS ethical landscape
While awareness is growing that ethical and justice-based debates hold implications for the development of fair and effective climate policy, the specific ethical implications of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) deployment have received limited attention. We present a preliminary assessment of ethical attitudes to CCS. The method builds on the ethical matrix approach to provide a so-called ethical landscape in which perspectives of CCS are mapped out as they relate to certain ethical principles. Opinions represented on the matrix begin to coalesce around compliance with the principle of providing benefits (a pre-requisite of pursuing development) while potential faultlines were observed for the following principles: environmental justice, preventing harm, scientific/technical competence, managerial/regulatory competence. Accountability (in the context of long term storage) was revealed to present a key challenge, exposing the current immaturity of legal and regulatory frameworks.
13.45 - 15.30 Mapping activity: CCS, BECCS Break out groups: Identify key ethical principles and governance issues
15.30 - 15.45 BREAK 15.45 - 16.15 Plenary discussion 16.15 - 16.30 Next steps and workshop close
DELEGATE LIST
Title First Name Last Name Institution/Organisation Mr Mariano Arrea Salto University of Edinburgh Dr Karen Bickerstaff University of Exeter Dr Fay Campbell UK CCS Research Centre Dr Jian Cheng Huaneng Clean Energy Research Institute Dr Matthew Cotton University of Sheffield Ms Emily Creamer University of Edinburgh Dr Heleen de Coninck Radboud University Mr Nat Dixon SRUC Mr Tope Falade University of the West of Scotland Ms Lisa Farrell Heriot-Watt University Mr Luchino Ferraris University of Edinburgh Dr David Fitch UK CCS Research Centre Mr Navraj Ghaleigh University of Edinburgh Prof Jon Gibbins UK CCS Research Centre Dr Clair Gough Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Ms Daniela Hildenbrand University of Edinburgh Ms Marta Juhasz University of Edinburgh Dr Jia Li University of Edinburgh Prof Xiaochun Li Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics Mr Chris Littlecott SCCS Mr Shijian Lu Sinopec Oilfield Service Corporation Dr Leslie Mabon Robert Gordon University Mr Ian MacKinlay TTF Dr Sarah Mander Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Dr Nils Markusson Lancaster University Dr Carly Maynard University of Edinburgh Mr Duncan McLaren Lancaster University Mrs Erika Palfi University of Edinburgh Dr Ann Parchment University College London Dr Sizhen Peng The Administrative Centre for China's Agenda 21 Ms Sadaf Rajabi Heriot-Watt University Dr David Reiner University of Cambridge Dr Annalisa Savaresi University of Edinburgh Dr Vivian Scott SCCS Prof Joyce Tait Innogen Institute Ms Louise Tideman University of Edinburgh Dr Xiaolong Wang Huaneng Clean Energy Research Institute Prof Feng Wei Chinese Academy of Science Dr Mark Winskel University of Edinburgh Ms Steph Wright UK CCS Research Centre Prof Steve Yearley University of Edinburgh Prof Xiang Yu Huazhong University of Science & Technology Dr Xian Zhang The Administrative Centre for China's Agenda 21 Dr Dechen Zhu University of Edinburgh
SPEAKERS AND CHAIRS Dr Karen Bickerstaff Senior Lecturer, University of Exeter [email protected] Karen Bickerstaff is a Human Geographer whose work addresses the cultural and public dimensions of environmental risk, low carbon innovation and energy policy. Karen has participated in a range of interdisciplinary projects exploring issues of energy demand, energy justice and everyday practice. She has a particular interest in exploring how transitioning to a low carbon society is (or is not) being made an issue for publics – and theorising the consequences for environmental governance, responsibility and equity . She led the RCUK-funded Interdisciplinary Cluster on Energy Systems Equity and Vulnerability from 2009-2011, and an edited volume which frames an agenda for "Energy Justice in a Changing Climate" (Bickerstaff, Walker and Bulkeley, 2013). Dr Matthew Cotton Lecturer, University of Sheffield [email protected] Matthew Cotton is a Lecturer in the Department of Town and Regional Planning at the University of Sheffield. He is a specialist in ethics and environmental justice in relation to major infrastructure planning, with published work focused upon nuclear power and long-term radioactive waste management, electricity transmission systems, energy-from-waste and shale gas fracking appearing in journals such as Energy Policy, Environment and Planning A, and Public Understanding of Science. He is also the author of the book 'Ethics and Technology Assessment: A Participatory Approach' (Springer). His recent research projects include working as co-investigator on the Joseph Rowntree Foundation-funded infrastructure and planning programme, the DEFRA-funded Programme of Research on Preparedness, Adaptation and Risk (PREPARE) and an interdisiplinary doctoral training programme on collective action problems and global solutions. Dr Heleen de Coninck Associate Professor, Radboud University [email protected] Heleen de Coninck is associate professor in innovation studies and sustainability at the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (ISIS) at Radboud University Nijmegen’s Faculty of Science. Before joining the university, she worked for over 10 years on international energy and climate policy at the Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN), the largest energy research institute in the country. As a researcher, Heleen’s main focus of work is international climate policy and technology. Since her joining ECN in December 2001, she worked on international climate policy, rural electrification, the Clean Development Mechanism, CO2 capture and storage, capacity building in developing countries and policy interactions. From 2002-2005, she was part of the Technical Support Unit of the IPCC Working Group III, where she coordinated the Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage.
Since 2008, she managed a group of eight researchers focussing on international climate policy, energy and development, and technology transfer and acted as programme manager for ECN Policy Studies. Heleen graduated in Chemistry and in Environmental Science, specialisation climate change and atmospheric chemistry, from the University of Nijmegen. After her studies, she worked as atmospheric chemistry researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, Germany. In 2009, Heleen finished a PhD, which she conducted alongside her work at ECN, on technology in the international climate regime at the VU University Amsterdam in collaboration with Princeton University in the United States. Dr Clair Gough Research Fellow, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research [email protected] Clair Gough is a Research Fellow at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester. Her research has integrated technical and social science analyses, featuring the use of long term scenarios and public and stakeholder participation in the context of energy and climate change. Much of Clair’s work is focused on assessments of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS), including the use of biomass energy with CCS. She is the UKCCSRC Research Area Champion for Societal Responses. Dr Leslie Mabon Lecturer in Sociology, Robert Gordon University [email protected] Leslie Mabon is a Lecturer in Sociology at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, with research focusing on the relationship between energy, environment and society. He is particularly interested in the ethical and moral dimensions of societal engagement on energy and environmental change, and in issues around offshore energy. Prior to taking up a position at RGU, Leslie worked as a post-doctoral researcher looking mainly at CCS. Dr Sarah Mander Research Fellow, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research [email protected] Dr Sarah Mander is a Research Fellow at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester. Her work is interdisciplinary, with a particular focus on integrating stakeholder and public perspectives with technical and modelling assessments. This research has covered diverse topics including resilience of electricity networks, electricity consumption and carbon capture and storage. Dr Nils Markusson Lecturer, Lancaster University [email protected] Nils Markusson is a Lecturer in Sustainability at Lancaster University. Nils wants to understand how technology is implicated in causing and solving environmental problems, and how we can use technology with as little environmental impact as possible. And, perhaps more profoundly, what we mean by ‘technology’ anyway, in relation to environmental issues. Research interests include carbon capture and storage technology and climate geoengineering, and more recently labour unions’ engagement with climate and technology. He is a social scientist, with a background in engineering, innovation policy, innovation studies and science & technology studies (STS). Much of his work is done in multi- and interdisciplinary collaborations, spanning social science, natural science, engineering and the humanities. He is a qualitative researcher, and favoured data sources include documents
and interviews, analysed as case studies. He also has experience of statistical analysis, foresight methodologies and recently digital methods. Dr Carly Maynard Post-Doctoral Research Associate, University of Edinburgh [email protected] With a background in physical geography and recent experience in knowledge production processes for energy and environmental management, I take an interdisciplinary approach to researching public interactions with our environment. Recent research has focused on the value of public knowledge for scientific development and environmental understanding. I aim to develop methodologies which allow the integration of a range of knowledge types (e.g. scientific, technical, political and experiential), in order to deliver effective environmental management options. I am also conducting research into public perceptions of environmental issues (e.g. climate change, carbon capture and storage, low carbon technologies), to define the factors which frame individual and community responses to technological and management developments. Duncan McLaren Lancaster University, previously Friends of the Earth [email protected] Duncan is a freelance researcher and part-time PhD student at Lancaster University. His research interests span cities, sustainability, climate, energy and geoengineering, with a particular focus on issues of justice arising in these areas. Amongst other positions, he is a member of the advisory group for the Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals (IAGP) project. Previously he worked for many years in research and advocacy for Friends of the Earth, most recently as Chief Executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland. UK Carbon Capture and Storage Research Centre (UKCCSRC) The UKCCSRC brings together over 1000 members including over 200 of the UK’s world-class CCS academics to provide a national focal point for CCS research and development. The Centre is a virtual network where academics, industry, regulators and others in the sector collaborate to analyse problems devise and carry out world-leading research and share delivery, thus maximising impact. A key priority is supporting the UK economy by driving an integrated research programme and building research capacity that is focused on maximising the contribution of CCS to a low-carbon energy system for the UK. The UKCCSRC is supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) www.epsrc.ac.uk as part of the Research Councils UK Energy Programme, with additional funding from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) www.decc.gov.uk for the UKCCSRC PACT Facilities www.pact.ac.uk
www.ukccsrc.ac.uk
CCS: Issues in Ethics and Governance
23rd September 2014
Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage
CCS A mitigation option that could be applied to large
fossil fuel point sources Offers potential for continued use of fossil fuels with
reduced climate impacts It prevents emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel power
stations / industries reaching the atmosphere by storing it indefinitely
Bioenergy and CCS (BECCS)
Ambitious climate change mitigation goals: » ≥80% reduction by 2050 (from 1990 levels) » Cumulative carbon budgets imply greater urgency
75% electricity generation in UK from fossil fuels
Emissions Performance
Emissions performance (gCO2/KWh)
EMR Energy Bill 2013 450
Unabated coal 760
Unabated gas 370
Coal CCS 60-150
Gas CCS 40-70
CCC proposed 50
Bioenergy and CCS (BECCS)
CO2
Unabated: Positive emissions
CO2
CCS: Reduced emissions
Bioenergy and CCS (BECCS)
CO2
“Neutral” emissions
CO2
“Negative” emissions
CCS: Issues in Ethics and Governance
This morning: » Perspectives on issues raised by CCS and BECCS and the bigger picture
This afternoon:
» Mapping the CCS ethical landscape » Mapping exercise
Ethical considerations of BECCS And some questions arising
Duncan McLaren Lancaster Environment Centre
Presented at CCS: Issues in governance and ethics UKCCS Research Centre Workshop Edinburgh 23rd Sept. 2014
Outline of presentation
Definition and scope
Ethical frameworks
Questions of ethics
Concluding reflections
Slide: 2/10
Definition and scope of ethics
Ethics is concerned with the moral principles that govern behaviour or the conduct of an activity. It addresses issues and questions of right and wrong, and of responsibilities and rights, with respect to both means and ends
Ethical approaches are diverse and contested and ethics are matters of judgement.
Ethical judgements on the same action can vary both with the interpretation of its outcomes and with the ethical approach applied.
Ethical values can be based on deontological (justice, fairness, rights), consequential (utilitarian, common good) or virtue (character) approaches.
3 Slide: 3/10
Some simplified ethics of BECCS in three major philosophical schools
Ethical if: Unethical if: Other considerations
Consequential Aggregated benefits (reduced climate damage) exceed aggregated harms
Aggregated harms (eg reduced food supply) exceed aggregated benefits
How are future costs and benefits weighted?
Deontological No individual rights infringed, or improves position of disadvantaged
Anyone’s rights infringed, or exacerbates inequality
Consent and other procedural issues. Other relevant duties.
Virtue Any harmful effects or side-effects are unintended and unforeseeable. No vested interests.
If no efforts made to eliminate foreseeable harmful effects. If decisions made by or for vested interests.
Intent matters. Consent and other procedural issues.
4 Slide: 4/10
What sort of things would we need to know about BECCS to reach sound ethical judgements?
What are the benefits and costs – including side-effects and system level consequences?
How are benefits and costs distributed amongst groups, over space and time?
What pre-existing rights and duties exist?
What interests do those involved have?
What procedures would surround decision making?
Are our existing assessments of adequate quality?
5 Slide: 5/10
Nuffield Council principles for ethical biofuels offer a helpful guide for all bioenergy
Development should not be at the expense of people‘s essential rights (including access to sufficient food and water, health rights, work rights and land entitlements).
Environmentally sustainable … [and] contribute to a net reduction of total greenhouse gas emissions and not exacerbate global climate change.
In accordance with trade principles that are fair and recognise the rights of people to just reward (including labour rights and intellectual property rights).
Costs and benefits should be distributed in an equitable way.
If the above Principles are respected and if bioenergy can play a crucial role in mitigating dangerous climate change then … there is a duty to develop such bioenergy.
Source: Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2010)
6 Slide: 6/10
The empirical issues most likely to determine the ethics of BECCS
The extent to which BECCS requires diversion of land from production of food (and fibre, construction material, biodiversity etc), and how such a process is regulated
The net carbon balances associated with biomass production for BECCS, taking account of the location and timing of direct and indirect land use change
7 Slide: 7/10
The overall availability, distribution and implications of development of carbon storage capacity
See https://sites.google.com/site/mclarenerc/research/negative-emissions-technologies for full report on NETS (including BECCS) and links to published material
Important second order questions in the ethics of BECCS
If we justify the development of CCS because of the possibility of negative emissions through BECCS, what of the effects on lock-in of fossil fired power?
Is the BECCS plant as carbon efficient as possible? For example, is the heat produced also used? What are the carbon costs of biomass transport?
If carbon captured is used for enhanced oil recovery – the most commercial route, at least for ethanol BECCS - does that change the ethics?
If BECCS is delivered through co-firing in conventional coal fired power plants that would otherwise be shut down, do the impacts of coal extraction for those plants rest ethically on BECCS?
Can BECCS be ethically included in carbon markets if the result is deployment as an offset (consuming finite storage capacity), rather than to reduce atmospheric concentrations?
8 Slide: 8/10
Scenarios and pathways: putting BECCS and alternatives in context
The moral hazard of deferring mitigation when BECCS (other CDR) might prove technically or economically inviable (eg due to exhaustion of storage, adverse energy balances etc)
The risk that we use BECCS or CDR in practice to offset emissions, rather than lowering atmospheric CO2 concentrations
CDR may well be genuinely essential to avoiding dangerous climate change: even with accelerated mitigation, returning to 350ppm will require global negative emissions.
9
This may be already
happening
Only serious in the long term if
storage is limited
The role of BECCS in this is questionable
Slide: 9/10
Concluding reflections
The current generation cannot argue that its ethical obligations to the future are fulfilled by the development of CDR technology
In the short term the ethical choice is almost certainly to accelerate mitigation in the rich world, rather than expropriate the biomass of the poor and natural worlds for BECCS …
… but in the medium term finding ethical and sustainable ways to deliver negative emissions is likely to be the only ethical option.
Ethical BECCS will likely be limited in various ways, and alternative forms of negative emissions may well be preferable
In ethics both ends and means matter, but ‘a stable climate’ might be best considered not an end in itself, but a means towards a bigger end, such as a just and sustainable society. In that case, how we deliver climate stability matters intensely.
10 Slide: 10/10
Climate change policy and the moral agency of CCS technologies
MATTHEW COTTON
UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD
STRUCTURE
1. Ethics and AR5
2. Ethics of CCS
3. Different ways to skin an ethical cat
4. Technology assessment
5. Participatory ethical technology assessment
CCS AND AR5 • UNFFCC ethical position to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference
• IPCC latest contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5): • Need for a mix of mitigation technologies
• Clear need for both institutional and technological developments, inter alia, CCS being an essential component
• Graeme Sweeney (Zero Emissions Platform Chairman): “we require well developed regulation to facilitate a level playing field vis-à-vis other low carbon technologies”
• European-level discussions around the 2030 Climate and Energy Framework
• CCS can help to achieve Europe’s CO2 emission reduction goals (at least 4% of the agreed GHG reduction on 1990 levels).
• Can also maintain competitiveness, retain jobs and preserve the industrial base (ecological modernisation)
ETHICS, CLIMATE JUSTICE AND AR5 • AR5 creates a new emphasis on ethics and justice implications of climate change
• Whereby national responses to climate change must avoid economic rationality and self-interest alone (i.e. global ethical issues)
• Climate change is an ethical issue in a number of respects: • It is caused by high-emitting nations, often putting lower emitting nations at most risk (it is intra-generational
and unevenly spatially distributed) • Risks are potentially existential threats to ecological systems on which all biological life depends (ecologically
unjust), and is at least disruptive to civil society (affects life and liberty) • Risk horizons extend overlong timeframes (it is inter-generational, non-reciprocal) • Those most poorest are both the least contributors and the most vulnerable (uneven distribution of
responsibility and adaptive capacity) • Political decision-making often excludes minority voices, including indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities,
developed nations, the working poor etc… (it is procedurally unjust)
SOME ETHICAL ISSUES OF CCS • The climate change mitigation potential of CCS is global whilst the storage is local (potentially negative
aspects of distributive environmental justice)
• CCS could prolong reliance upon fossil fuels thus diverting resources from the development of alternative energy production system (ethics of technology choice)
• Whether or not CCS is safe (for example concerning the toxicity of amine solvents – do we use utilitarian ethics?).
• Comparing CCS risk within a broader framework of climate risks – (tradeoffs – no such thing as a zero risk scenario, again utilitarian ethics)
• Decision-making, public engagement and technology choice – to what extent are ‘publics’ CCS-capable? (discourse ethics)
THEN THERE ARE THE ETHICS OF NOT DOING SOMETHING….
• International energy agency (2012): “those technologies with the greatest potential for energy and carbon dioxide emissions savings are making the slowest progress. Carbon capture and storage is not seeing the necessary rates of investment into full-scale demonstration projects and nearly one-half of new coal-fired power plants are still being built with inefficient technology”.
• There are ethical issues in the governance of technology, in investment and implementation strategies as well as the impacts of the technology itself
• What I want to emphasise is that the ethics of CCS is predicated upon the concept of choice, rather than the intrinsic qualities of the technology itself
DIFFERENT WAYS TO SKIN AN ETHICAL CAT
• Normative ethics,
• Applied ethics and special ethics
• Engineering ethics
• Environmental ethics
• Technology ethics
• Meta-ethics
NORMATIVE ETHICS
• Ethics of action, concerning how individuals should act in an imperfect world with imperfect nature
• Prescriptive, it has to bind moral behaviour in some way
• Differs from descriptive ethics – empirical evaluation of moral beliefs
• The is/ought conundrum – normative ethics cannot take the form of a list of rights and wrongs
• Deontology, consequentialism, ethics of virtue, ethics of care etc… a cornucopia of theoretical frameworks (isms)
APPLIED ETHICS AND SPECIAL ETHICS
• The application of normative ethical theories to moral problems (like applied maths)
• The implication of real world phenomena to moral theories (situationist ethics, casuistry)
• Special ethics – do we need new ethics for new situations? E.g. Environmental ethics, do the standard moral theories apply to the evaluation of non-human wellbeing (the land ethic for example)?
TECHNOLOGY ETHICS
• Engineering ethics concerns conduct – the obligations of engineers to civil society
• Technology ethics concerns the impacts of the development and application of novel technological solutions to societal problems
• Whether it is right or wrong to invent and then implement a technological solution.
• The ways in which technology extends or curtails the power of individuals
• The processes by which such ethical issues can be decided (Ethical Technology Assessment)
• However! The question is whether we adopt an instrumentalist view of technology or something else.
INSTRUMENTALIST VIEW
• Guns don’t kill people, people kill people
• Ethics concerns the conduct of individuals, technologies are tools in the hands of moral actors
Technology is inert without human
interaction Human agents make choices (sometimes
using technologies as a result)
NON-INSTRUMENTALIST VIEW
• A form of meta-ethics – understanding what has moral value, who makes decisions and how ethics are negotiated, rather than just which set of rules to apply
• New technologies create new moral choices – • for example prenatal scanning and amniocentesis allows us to diagnose conditions before birth – the foetus
becomes “medicalised”, and the quality and scope of moral decisions (such as to terminate pregnancy or not) is altered through a technologically mediated process
• Technologies are therefore “morally charged” they create different moral landscapes and different potential courses of action
• In short they create different choices and thus have a kind of moral agency
WHY CCS HAS STRUGGLED
• CCS is not (really all that) unethical in a consequentialist sense – it has moral benefits that are comparative (against unrestrained fossil fuel use), though some risks remain (preventing intrusion to underground storage, the chemicals used in capture etc.).
• However, it represents an embodied set of moral choices: • Look at the ethical implications of current UK climate change policy – Act on CO2 for example – emphasis on
personal responsibility for climate change mitigation • CCS potentially diminishes human moral agency by transferring responsibility to a technological process –
CCS becomes “enrolled” in the making of moral decisions
• So what is the solution?
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Technology assessment advice to governing
body
Consider impacts of technology options
Project current trends into the future
Be optimistic, but speak truth to power
Implement technology, reassess if necessary
ETHICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Traditional steps of
technology assessment
Explicit consideration
of diverse public social and moral
values
Socially and morally robust
technology implementation
PARTICIPATORY ETHICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Public ethical values
Technological choices
Assessment of technology
choices
• PETA – ethical values are implicit in the choice of technological options
• If we accept that technologies are socio-technical systems that require democratic control, so must our ethics be democratic and technologically sensitive
• Deliberation in the hands of those that are affected • Avoid technocracy, empower communities (strong deliberative
democratic control)
DELIBERATIVE ETHICAL TOOLS • THE ETHICAL MATRIX (MEPHAM)
Wellbeing Autonomy Fairness
Nuclear industry Profit generation, growing employment Freedom from regulation and planning
constraints
Low cost electricity to consumers,
alleviating fuel poverty
Citizens Protection from risk of radiation leaks
and accidents
Decision-making input to site selection Compensation in the face of elevated
risks
Future generations
An environment free of radiological
contamination
Knowledge about past practices and
impacts
Reciprocity across time frames, avoiding
discounting of future lives
The biosphere Environmental remediation of
contaminated sites
Maintenance of biodiversity and
ecological health
Non-anthropocentric valuation of natural
resources
Ethical matrix for new build nuclear power
ETHICAL GRID (SEEDHOUSE)
HEXAGON MAPPING (COTTON)
Biota
Actors who don’t have a
say in decision-making
Future generations
Can never
have a say
in current
decisions
Trust fund –for future ecological
conservation
People who can’t vote
HM Treasury
Don’t currently have a say
Ensuring safety is most
important
Children
A ring
A chain
A cross-link
Will likely be harmed as a
result
Can we make decisions on
their behalf? Is it fair?
Actants – stakeholders, technologies, organisms and environments
Questions, issues or concerns raised by the technology in question
Consequences, outcomes or effects
Actions, behaviours, intentions and procedures
Ethical questions or issues resulting from interactions
REFLECTIVE ETHICAL MAPPING (COTTON)
CONCLUSIONS
• Climate change and CCS ethics could be comparative (in which case CCS ‘wins’)
• …But CCS implicitly embodies moral values and choices, some of which seem antithetical to environmentally-sensitive ethical principles – moral responsibility (in human agency) vs technological responsibility (non-human agency)
• Elucidating these dimensions through PETA is a key research priority – to avoid making assumptions about ‘whose ethics counts’
• A tool-based approach avoids moral monism, is grounded in a real world decision-making context, is amenable to value pluralism.
Ethical dimensions of CCS: comparing Scotland and Japan
Dr Leslie Mabon Robert Gordon University Aberdeen
Mabon, L, and Shackley, S (2014) ‘More than meeting the targets? The ethical dimensions of carbon dioxide capture and storage’ Environmental Values Advance online version: http://www.erica.demon.co.uk/EV/papers/Mabon.pdf
Preston (2011) – challenge ‘moral presumption’ against geoengineering in environmental ethics; Gough and Boucher (2013) – ethical matrices and ethical landscapes of CCS; Apply to work with publics/stakeholders in Scotland, now expand to data from Japan.
Justice
Preventing harm
Competence
Justice: Scotland – faultlines along procedural/epistemic, also distributional (?); Japan – good consensus on distribution of benefits? Preventing harm: Scotland – temporal, does deploying CCS now prevent future harm? Japan – how ‘harmful’ is CCS compared to nuclear and/or other marine drivers? Competence: Scotland – do we need competence in CCS? Japan – are we competent to operate CCS, especially with regard to earthquakes?
Innovation, equity and energy system transformation: implications for CCS
Karen Bickerstaff Exeter University
Procedural Justice and (low carbon) energy systems in UK: CCS, nuclear, fracking…
• Instrumentalism: downstream participation, to support delivery. • Partiality: The ‘pliant cheerleader’: "But even though in the UK we
have the depleted oil and gas fields that are ideal for testing this [CCS] technology, not a single pilot is yet taking place in Britain. We cannot afford this kind of delay”. (Cameron, 2007)
• Accessibility: Rescaling of participation / power: • UK Planning Act (2008): centralisation of power and the
localisation of participation • Fracking: removal of responsibility to notify directly (2014)
• Transparency: failure to provide adequate account of decision-making.
• The normalisation of knowledge inequalities: Stanley, (2009) Bäckstrand et al (2011): “But what about the alternatives”
Justice and energy system transformation
• More systematic integration of ethical principles into analysis of mitigation; more on comprehensive normative framework for comparing mitigation options that goes beyond monetary impacts and enables comparisons and trade-offs (Caney, 2014).
• There appears to be little research in the UK examining the extent to which principles of social justice are applied to mitigation policy either nationally or locally (Preston et al, 2014).
Responsible innovation
• A “transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view on the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products” (Von Schomberg, 2011; 9).
• Origins in novel technology assessment: nanotechnology, geoengineering, synthetic biology
• References made to the safe and responsible exploitation of the UK's shale gas resources (following opposition).
• What does / might this mean in practice?
Anticipate
• Capacities to make transparent possible impacts of system innovations: to prepare for what may happen – Alternative (plausible) future energy worlds (with /
without CCS) – Ask ‘what if. . .?’ questions (Ravetz, 1997) – Expectations for technology across a variety of scales /
actors – Socio-political (institutions, regulation, ownership,
financing, etc.) as well as technical aspects of innovation • Hindsight as well as foresight: What can we learn from the
history of say RWM
Reflection and engagement
• Reflexivity and debate on the impacts, intended or otherwise, of different visions, and areas of uncertainty / ignorance. – Embed interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder
approaches – Publics at different points in the energy system
• Ethical technology assessments (e.g. the ethical matrix, Boucher and Gough, 2012)
Act? Responsiveness to RI findings
• Will RI genuinely open up, rather than close down and legitimate, decision-making (Rose, 2012)?
• Offers a flexible framework for responding to procedural inadequacies at the root of energy system conflict
• Critically it requires a capacity to change the shape of innovation in response to stakeholder and public values or new knowledge
• Makes it clear that responsible CCS must extend beyond CCS
Untangling critical governance conditions for CCS
Heleen de Coninck Radboud University
Workshop: CCS: Issues in governance and ethics UK Carbon Capture and Storage Research Centre Edinburgh, September 23rd, 2014
Overview of CCS projects
Val Verde Gas Plant
(1.3 Mt/yr)
1990 1980 2000 2010 2020 1970
Enid Fertilizer Plant
(0.7 Mt/yr) Shute Creek Gas Processing
(7 Mt/yr)
Sleipner Vest Gas Processing
(1 Mt/yr) Great Plains Synfuel and
Weyburn (3 Mt/yr)
In Salah Gas Project
(1.1 Mt/yr) Snohvit
Gas Project (0.7 Mt/yr Port Arthur
SMR Project (1Mt/yr)
Operating Industrial Scale Projects
Under Construction Industrial Scale Projects
Agrium Fertilizer Project (0.6 Mt/yr)
Sturgeon Refinery Project (1.2 Mt/yr)
Kemper County IGCC (3.5 Mt/yr)
Lost Cabin Gas Plant (1 Mt/yr)
ADM Ethanol Plant (1 Mt/yr)
Gorgon Gas LNG Plant Project (3-4 Mt/yr)
Quest Upgrader Project (1.2Mt/yr)
Boundary Dam Power Post-Combustion (1 Mt/yr)
Published in: De Coninck and Benson: Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2014. 39:243-70
Why is CCS failing in so many places?
• For reasons specific to those places • Common: public resistance, rising costs, absence of
market signals • Specific:
– Confidence in other options: renewables, shale gas
– Lack of political will for action on climate change (disillusion after Copenhagen)
– Economic crisis and ensuing low CO2-prices
Who are the key actors (loosely based on functions in Technological Innovation Systems)?
Bergek et al. (2008 )
Many actors matter
Political leaders
Investors Communities
Policymakers
NGOs
CO2-emitting industry
Storage operators
Scientists
Think tanks
Local decision-makers
Actors depend on each other
Political leaders
Investors Communities
Policymakers
NGOs
CO2-emitting industry
Storage operators
Scientists
Think tanks
Local decision-makers
Some are more independent
Political leaders
Investors Communities
Policymakers
NGOs
CO2-emitting industry
Storage operators
Scientists
Think tanks
Local decision-makers
Political leader
• Positive arguments • Climate change awareness • Positive economics
• Credible information sources • Political benefit for party/constituency • Industrial support
• Climate change action
• Storage security • Community support • Robust policy support • Favorable cost and market conditions
Critical governance conditions
Published in: De Coninck and Benson: Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2014. 39:243-70
A new (CCS-positive) social science research agenda
• What is an acceptable climate action agenda that would make a difference to CCS?
• How can policy support be made robust over the longer term?
• How do independent experts, communities and politicians interact?
• Why would a political leader become involved in CCS?
Unwrapping the reasons for lack of public
discussion around CCS
UKCCSRC Governance and Ethics Workshop
23 September 2014
Carly Maynard University of Edinburgh
Co-researchers: Simon Shackely, Leslie Mabon, David Rudolph
25/09/2014 page 2
Public perceptions of CCS
• The general public have limited awareness of CCS (exception: localities around CCS projects)
• Lack of awareness can result in ambivalent perceptions or ‘pseudo-opinions’
• Results in unstable opinions, easily swayed by contextual information
Is this lack of awareness a reflection of the (un)popularity of CCS or does it mean that the public do not realise or appreciate
the need for decarbonised energy production systems?
• Despite ambivalence or lack of interest, CCS developers must continue to engage the public
What affects public perceptions of CCS?
25/09/2014 page 3
Context + Values Context: •Previous exposure to industry
–Industry in their area? Experiences with specific developers?
•Tangible impacts of CCS
–Affect how individuals feel: provision of jobs; building structures
•Provision of information
– Change to +ve with information; some exceptions; nature of information
•Who conducts communication, and how
– Better received from NGOs or academics than industries or businesses
What affects public perceptions of CCS?
25/09/2014 page 4
Values: • What does CCS development mean to an individual? • Decision-making tools – affected by values & environment = unique
• Heuristics and framings: – Recognition heuristic – Satisficing heuristic – Performance frame – Financial risk frame – Carbon lock-in frame – Expertise and Uncertainty frames
Edinburgh Climate and Energy Citizen Panel
25/09/2014 page 5
• ECO2 EU FP7 Project • Assessing the long and short term risks of sub-marine CO2 storage on the
marine environment
Social research aims: • Assess public and stakeholder perceptions of low carbon options (e.g.
CCS) to understand how people make sense of an issue when learning about low carbon solutions
• Consider importance of: personal values, relationships with other stakeholders, characteristics of technology, position of CCS within the wider energy debate (CCS narrative was not implied by the facilitators)
• Identify public views of low carbon options and CCS in relation to: politics, management, behaviour change, emissions targets, personal impacts
• Determine how to address the concerns represented within the citizen panel
Edinburgh Climate and Energy Citizen Panel: Approach
25/09/2014 page 6
• 17 participants from Edinburgh area • Varied demographic in terms of age, profession, social-economic
status • Participants came with little or no awareness of CCS and no strong
agenda on climate change or energy
• Six sessions of two hours – Exploring ‘life-world’ of participants – Presentations on climate change, mitigation options, CCS and low carbon
infrastructure – Question and answer session with ex-civil servant of Scottish Government
(climate change policy) and director for renewable energy projects at Scottish Power
– Identification of key climate and CCS questions for the citizen panel and preparation of answers/solutions/extensions to these questions
Perspectives of citizen panel members
25/09/2014 page 7
The group members considered that CCS is likely to be beneficial in reducing carbon emissions but emphasised that due to the scale and
nature of the process, it was unlikely to be a key priority for members of the public
•When allowed to direct the conversation, the wider climate debate, governance and specific issues such as carbon emissions and recycling dominated over CCS
•Participants started with limited awareness of CCS and following information provision, remained wary about discussing the topic
•Renewable energy options were favoured over CCS
•Concerns were expressed around the cost of CCS, the necessity for subsidies, and the extent of its true benefits to carbon emissions were questioned
Issues of governance
25/09/2014 page 8
• The panel members noted that if the public is to support CCS, its
benefits must be more clearly and prominently communicated
• Efforts for carbon reduction were considered to be, firstly, the responsibility of the Government
• The panel cited stronger, top-down, leadership from the Government as one of their key needs in addressing climate issues. – due to urgency of action towards climate change?
• Despite their need for top-down governance, the group questioned the suitability of the government for this role, and suggested that climate experts would be more appropriate in advising and designing strategies
25/09/2014 page 9
• The citizen panel members suggest that they are willing to take some responsibility in mitigating carbon emissions and tackling climate change, but within the scope of the lives which they currently lead
• CCS was positioned as one, distant and intangible aspect of climate mitigation by the citizen panel
• Citing their own limitations in awareness and involvement with CCS, combined with the responsibility they expect the government to hold, they require the government to lead them
Distancing themselves from CCS
Why do people avoid discussing CCS?
25/09/2014 page 10
Who is responsible? Who should decide? What is my role in this?
Are the public unwilling to take responsibility for their carbon emissions? Delegating responsibility for dealing with expert knowledge – asking ‘why should we know?’ Delegating expertise – having opinions but not wanting to make a decision
Why the unwillingness to consider CCS?
• Lack of understanding about the energy system and the maths of carbon reduction?
• Implicit denial of the urgency of climate change = de-prioritisation of the importance of CCS?
• Genuine belief that renewables and problems like intermittency can be over-come? i.e. take a v. positive perspective on renewables and our ability to implement them quickly
• Something about the 'alien' nature of CCS means the idea becomes 'stigmatised' in a similar way to nuclear?
• Delegation of responsibility: Lack of confidence in one’s own knowledge, or in a technology can lead individuals to defer judgement to those whom they believe possess appropriate knowledge
25/09/2014 page 11
25/09/2014 page 12
The tendency of the citizen panel members to choose to focus on climate mitigation measures which are more accessible
and understandable to them than CCS, has important implications for governance.
If we are to provide effective governance on CCS we must listen to the requirements of the public and offer leadership
where it is needed, thus increasing access to a technology with which the public are currently reluctant to engage
Conclusion
Mapping the CCS ethical landscape
Clair Gough
23rd September 2014
CCS Ethical Assessment
Pilot study funded by IEAGHG R&D Scope potential issues and improve understanding of
those issues Extends ethical matrix methodology High resolution matrix: 13 ethical principles by 20
actors Caveats: modestly resourced, not participative
CCS Ethical Assessment
Identifies: » A set of ethical principles against which CCS may be
evaluated » Actors’ ethical framings – how they position CCS against
principles » Faultlines and areas of compliance
Methodology (1) Identify ethical principles:
» Iterative process » Literature (applied ethics, CCS and ethics)
» Knowledge & understanding from previous stakeholder research
Identify actors: » Iterative process » Aim for representation across NGO, governance, industrial and
academic communities
Methodology (2)
Populate the matrix
Code ethical framings / statements: » Strong/explicit; moderate/implicit compliance or deviation » Neither conforms nor deviates from principle » No statement
Provides visual map of ethical landscape
Justice Wellbeing Control, Influence and Power HU/SV
Inte
rgen
erat
iona
l
Soci
al
Envi
ronm
enta
l
Fina
ncia
l
Prov
idin
g B
enef
its
Prev
entin
g H
arm
Aut
onom
y
Hon
esty
Acc
ount
abili
ty
Tech
/ Sc
i C
ompe
tenc
e
Man
/ R
eg
Com
pete
nce
Prop
riety
Nat
ural
ness
Bellona CCSA
CCS101 (Canada)
Christian Aid Climate Action
Network Coal Action
DECC Env. Agency
EU
Friends of the Earth
Germanwatch Greenpeace
IEA IPCC
NRDC RSPB
Scottish Power Shell
Statoil
EURELECTRIC
Ethical principles
Justice: » Intergenerational; Social; Environmental; Financial
Well being: » Providing benefits, preventing harm
Control, influence, power: » Autonomy; Honesty; Accountability; Technical and scientific
competence; Managerial and regulatory competence
Social understandings and human values: » Propriety; Naturalness
Actors
NGOs » Bellona, Christian Aid. Climate Action Network, Coal Action, FoE,
Germanwatch, Greenpeace, NRDC, RSPB
Industrial / trade: » CCSA, CCS101 (Canada), Scottish Power, Shell, Statoil,
EURELECTRIC
Governance organisations: » DECC, Environment Agency, EU
Other: » IPCC, IEA
Justice Wellbeing Control, Influence and Power HU/SV
Inte
rgen
erat
iona
l
Soci
al
Envi
ronm
enta
l
Fina
ncia
l
Prov
idin
g B
enef
its
Prev
entin
g H
arm
Aut
onom
y
Hon
esty
Acc
ount
abili
ty
Tech
/ Sc
i C
ompe
tenc
e
Man
/ R
eg
Com
pete
nce
Prop
riety
Nat
ural
ness
Bellona CCSA
CCS101 (Canada)
Christian Aid Climate Action
Network Coal Action
DECC Env. Agency
EU
Friends of the Earth
Germanwatch Greenpeace
IEA IPCC
NRDC RSPB
Scottish Power Shell
Statoil
EURELECTRIC
Faultlines
Justice Wellbeing Control, Influence and Power HU/SV
Inte
rgen
erat
iona
l
Soci
al
Envi
ronm
enta
l
Fina
ncia
l
Prov
idin
g B
enef
its
Prev
entin
g H
arm
Aut
onom
y
Hon
esty
Acc
ount
abili
ty
Tech
/ Sc
i C
ompe
tenc
e
Man
/ R
eg
Com
pete
nce
Prop
riety
Nat
ural
ness
Bellona CCSA
CCS101 (Canada)
Christian Aid Climate Action
Network Coal Action
DECC Env. Agency
EU
Friends of the Earth
Germanwatch Greenpeace
IEA IPCC
NRDC RSPB
Scottish Power Shell
Statoil
EURELECTRIC
Congruence
Justice Wellbeing Control, Influence and Power HU/SV
Inte
rgen
erat
iona
l
Soci
al
Envi
ronm
enta
l
Fina
ncia
l
Prov
idin
g B
enef
its
Prev
entin
g H
arm
Aut
onom
y
Hon
esty
Acc
ount
abili
ty
Tech
/ Sc
i C
ompe
tenc
e
Man
/ R
eg
Com
pete
nce
Prop
riety
Nat
ural
ness
Bellona CCSA
CCS101 (Canada)
Christian Aid Climate Action
Network Coal Action
DECC Env. Agency
EU
Friends of the Earth
Germanwatch Greenpeace
IEA IPCC
NRDC RSPB
Scottish Power Shell
Statoil
EURELECTRIC
Ethical Framings
CCS Ethical landscape: faultlines (1) Environmental justice
» Potential to deliver significant and robust emission reductions » Environmental risks
Preventing harm: » How does CCS compare to alternative mitigation options » Timing, ‘untested’, energy penalty, leakage, EOR » Mitigation urgency, bridging approach, high coal use inevitable,
‘100%’ leakage
CCS Ethical landscape: faultlines(2) Scientific / technical competence:
» Limited data, quantification of leakage, implications of human error / tech faults, potential storage capacity, scaling up
» Skills are there (component stages), storage analogues (oil & gas), extensive research and diagnostics
Managerial regulatory competence: » Immaturity of legal/regulatory frameworks; international
arrangements (storage market, cooperation and engagements); ownership and responsibility across the CCS system; financial/political stability to maintain long term monitoring etc
» UK is ahead
CCS Ethical matrix: attention!
Ethical landscape is dynamic – matrix provides a snapshot
Heuristic device – summarises sophisticated complex positions
Participative approach needed to improve legitimacy and robustness
Based on data not intended for use in ethical context
Thank you
C. Gough and P. Boucher. (2013) Ethical attitudes to underground CO2 storage: points of convergence and potential faultlines. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control (13) 156-197
P. Boucher and C. Gough (2012) Mapping the Ethical Landscape of Carbon Capture and Storage, Poiesis & Praxis 9(3-4), 249-270
CCS Ethical matrix: detail
Preventing Harm Technical and Scientific Competence
Bellona
• Global deployment necessary to address climate challenge
• CCS’ role in removal of CO2 from atmosphere • Even 1% leakage over millenia is better than
“100%” if we do nothing
• Technical challenges can be solved with a joint effort from industry, research institutes, politicians and NGOs.
• Current lack of knowledge to quantify CO2 leakage although risks of leakage in a well managed site are nearly absent and decrease over time.
• Petroleum and chemical industry has decades experience of safe CO2 transport
Greenpeace
• CCS will not deliver on time to avoid dangerous CC
• It will erase efficiency gains of last 50 years • Even very low leakage rates could undermine
any climate mitigation efforts
• The technical competence for storage capacity and leakage, seismic monitoring (offshore) are not trusted, nor is the general proof of the technical concept or the guarantee of permanent storage
IPCC • Continuous leakage of CO2 could offset
mitigation benefits
• Complete CCS systems can be assembled from existing mature technologies although state of development of overall systems may be less than its components
• Storage of CO2 in deep offshore geological formations uses many of same techniques developed in the oil and gas industry which are proven economically feasible
• Models suggest well managed and selected geological reservoirs provide secure storage over millions years, but there is limited physical data on leakage
