Skip to main content

Examining the Role of Carbon Capture and Storage Through an Ethical Lens

Science and Engineering Ethics volume 20, pages 1111–1128 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

The risk posed by anthropogenic climate change is generally accepted, and the challenge we face to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to a tolerable limit cannot be underestimated. Reducing GHG emissions can be achieved either by producing less GHG to begin with or by emitting less GHG into the atmosphere. One carbon mitigation technology with large potential for capturing carbon dioxide at the point source of emissions is carbon capture and storage (CCS). However, the merits of CCS have been questioned, both on practical and ethical grounds. While the practical concerns have already received substantial attention, the ethical concerns still demand further consideration. This article aims to respond to this deficit by reviewing the critical ethical challenges raised by CCS as a possible tool in a climate mitigation strategy and argues that the urgency stemming from climate change underpins many of the concerns raised by CCS.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. The CCS process is comprised of three key stages: separation, transport; and storage. Initially, CO2 is separated from other exhaust gases and contaminants produced when fossil fuels are burnt for energy generation or other industrial processes. After separation, the CO2 is then compressed and transported to a location, such as a geologic aquifer, for storage. At this storage site, the CO2 is then injected into the ground under rock formations to depths of 1 km or more. Once injected, sensing technologies are used to monitor the CO2 to ensure safe and long term storage.

  2. Singer (1999) notes this universal point of view with regard to ethical judgements has been reflected in a wide range of theories, some of which are highly incompatible. This includes such theories as the ‘Golden Rule’ in Christianity, the Stoics’ view that ethics is derived from a universal natural law, Kant’s Principle of Universalizability along with R. M. Hare’s later development of Kant’s theory, Hume and Smith’s appeal to an impartial spectator in eighteenth century moral philosophy, utilitarian views from Bentham to J. J. C. Smart regarding the equal value of persons, and Rawls’ development of ethical principles from the Original Position. In these vastly different ethical theories and approaches, the one common element that can be drawn out is the notion that ethics implies that we look beyond our own concerns in order to also consider concerns of others. We do, however, recognise that the fundamental differences in these theories are extensive and subject of much ongoing debate.

References

  • Ackerman, F., & Heinzerling, L. (2001). Pricing the priceless: Cost-benefit analysis of environmental protection. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150, 1553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, P., Boughen, N., Mayhew, M., & Millar, F. (2010). From research to action: Now we have to move on CCS communication. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 4(2), 426–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, P., Bradbury, J., Wade, S., Ynke Feenstra, C. F. J., Greenberg, S., Hund, G., et al. (2012). What’s in store: Lessons from implementing CCS. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 9, 402–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D. (2010). Justice and the politics of climate change. In C. Lever-Tracy (Ed.), Routledge handbook of climate change and society (pp. 423–441). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellona Foundation. (2008). How to combat global warming. http://www.bellona.org/filearchive/fil_Bellona_CC8_Report_-_Final_version_-_30_mai.pdf. Accessed 30 March 2013.

  • Bradbury, J., Greenberg, S., & Wade, S. (2011). Communicating the risks of CCS. Washington DC: Wade LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury, J., Ray, I., Peterson, T., Wade, S., Wong-Parodi, G., & Feldpausch, A. (2009). The role of social factors in shaping public perceptions of CCS: Results of multi-state focus group interviews in the US. Energy Procedia, 1(1), 4665–4672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broome, J. (2008). The ethics of climate change. Scientific American, 298(6), 96–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. A. (2003). The importance of expressly examining global warming policy issues through an ethical prism. Global Environmental Change, 13, 229–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D.A. (2008). The ethics of allocating public research funds for carbon capture and storage. http://blogs.law.widener.edu/climate/2008/10/16/the-ethics-of-allocating-public-research-funds-for-carbon-capture-and-storage/. Accessed 30 March 2013.

  • Brown, D. A. (2011). Comparative ethical issues entailed in the geological disposal of radioactive waste and carbon dioxide in the light of climate change. In F. L. Toth (Ed.), Geological disposal of carbon dioxide and radioactive waste: A comparative assessment (pp. 317–337). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. A. (2013). Climate change ethics: Navigating the perfect moral storm. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. A., Tuana, N., Averill, M., Baer, P., Born, R., Lessa Brandão, C. E., et al. (2009). White paper on the ethical dimensions of climate change. Pennsylvania: Rock Ethics Institute, Penn State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunsting, S., Upham, P., Duetschke, E., De Best Waldhober, M., Oltra, C., Desbarats, J., et al. (2011). Communicating CCS: Applying communications theory to public perceptions of carbon capture and storage. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5(6), 1651–1662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caney, S. (2009). Climate change and the future: Discounting for time, wealth, and risk. Journal of Social Philosophy, 40(2), 163–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caney, S. (2010). Climate change, human rights, and moral thresholds. In S. Gardiner, S. Caney, D. Jamieson, & H. Shue (Eds.), Climate ethics: Essential readings (pp. 163–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalkidou, K., Lord, J., Fischer, A., & Littlejohns, P. (2008). Evidence-based decision making: when should we wait for more information? Health Affairs, 27(6), 1642–1653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, I. S., Corrigan, P., Sim, S., & Birbilis, N. (2011). Corrosion of pipelines used for CO2 transport in CCS: Is it a real problem? International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5(4), 749–756.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwall, S. L. (2003). Theories of Ethics. In R. G. Frey & C. H. Wellman (Eds.), A companion to applied ethics (pp. 17–37). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Coninck, H. (2008). Trojan horse or horn of plenty? Reflections on allowing CCS in the CDM. Energy Policy, 36(3), 929–936.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Coninck, H., & Bäckstrand, K. (2011). An international relations perspective on the global politics of carbon dioxide capture and storage. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 368–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Coninck, H., Stephens, J. C., & Metz, B. (2009). Global learning on carbon capture and storage: A call for strong international cooperation on CCS demonstration. Energy Policy, 37(6), 2161–2165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, S., Hepburn, C. & Stern, N. (2007). Economics, ethics and climate change. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1090572. Accessed 13 Aug 2012.

  • Durant, J. (1999). Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 313–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einsiedel, E. F., Boyd, A. D., Medlock, J., & Ashworth, P. (2013). Assessing socio-technical mindsets: Public deliberations on carbon capture and storage in the context of energy sources and climate change. Energy Policy, 53, 149–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekeli, K. S. (2004). Environmental risks, uncertainty and intergenerational ethics. Environmental Values, 13(4), 421–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fentiman, A. (2013). Radioactive waste management: Storage, transport, disposal. In N. Tsoulfanidis (Ed.), Nuclear energy (pp. 269–282). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., & Fischhoff, I. (2001). Public opinions about biotechnologies. AgBioForum, 4(3&4), 155–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forster, M., & Pertile, P. (2012). Optimal decision rules for HTA under uncertainty: A wider, dynamic perspective. Health Economics,. doi:10.1002/hec.2893.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, S. (2003). The pure intergenerational problem. Monist: An International Quarterly Journal of General Philosophical Inquiry, 86(3), 481–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, S. (2006). A perfect moral storm: Climate change, intergenerational ethics and the problem of moral corruption. Environmental Values, 15(3), 397–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, S. M. (2011). Climate justice. In D. Schlosberg, R. B. Norgaard, & J. S. Dryzek (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of climate change and society (pp. 309–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, S. & Hartzell-Nichols, L. (2012). Ethics and global climate change. Nature Education Knowledge, 3(10), 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garnaut, R. (2011). The Garnaut review 2011: Australia in the global response to climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrod, G., & Willis, K. G. (1999). Economic valuation of the environment: Methods and case studies. London: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garvey, J. (2008). The ethics of climate change: Right and wrong in a warming world. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • GCCSI. (2011). The global status of CCS: 2011. Canberra: Global CCS Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • GCCSI. (2012). The global status of CCS: 2012. Canberra: Global CCS Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genus, A. (2006). Rethinking constructive technology assessment as democratic, reflective, discourse. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(1), 13–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, R. E. (1996). Enfranchising the earth, and its alternatives. Political Studies, 44(5), 835–849.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosseries, A. (2008). On future generations’ future rights. Journal of Political Philosophy, 16(4), 446–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, C., & Boucher, P. (2013). Ethical attitudes to underground CO2 storage: Points of convergence and potential faultlines. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 13, 156–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grey, W. (1996). Possible persons and the problems of posterity. Environmental Values, 5(2), 161–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ha-Duong, M., & Loisel, R. (2011). Actuarial risk assessment of expected fatalities attributable to carbon capture and storage in 2050. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5, 1346–1358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., Beerling, D., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pagani, M., et al. (2008). Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2, 217–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, A., & Bryngelsson, M. (2009). Expert opinions on carbon dioxide capture and storage—a framing of uncertainties and possibilities. Energy Policy, 37(6), 2273–2282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haszeldine, R. S. (2009). Carbon capture and storage: How green can black be? Science, 325(5948), 1647–1652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, S., & Hope, T. (2012). The ethics of attaching research conditions to access to new health technologies. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(6), 366–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, K. Z., Harvey, C. F., Aziz, M. J., & Schrag, D. P. (2009). The energy penalty of post-combustion CO2 capture & storage and its implications for retrofitting the US installed base. Energy & Environmental Science, 2(2), 193–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, R. B. (2009). Discounting, uncertainty, and revealed time preference. Land Economics, 85(1), 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, L. (2009). The four ‘R’s of energy security. Energy Policy, 37(6), 2459–2461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huijts, N. M. A., Midden, C. J. H., & Meijnders, A. L. (2007). Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2780–2789.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huijts, N. M. A., Molin, E. J. E., & Steg, L. (2012). Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(1), 525–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • IEA. (2008). Energy technology perspectives 2008: Scenarios & strategies to 2050. Paris: OECD/IEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • IEA. (2009). Technology roadmap: Carbon capture and storage. Paris: OECD/IEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • IEA. (2013). Tracking clean energy progress 2013. Paris: OECD/IEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. (2005). In B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, H. C. de Coninck, M. Loos, & L. A. Meyer (Eds.), IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • IPCC. (2007a). Climate change: The physical science basis. In S. Soloman, D. Qin, & M. Manning (Eds.), Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (p. 703). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • IPCC. (2007b). Glossary. In B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, & L. A. Meyer (Eds.), Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, IPCC Working Group 3 (p. 818). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • IPCC. (2011). Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, D. (1992). Ethics, public policy and global warming. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17(2), 139–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41, 223–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, S. (1998). Normative ethics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavka, G. S. (1982). The paradox of future individuals. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 11(2), 93–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klinsky, S., & Dowlatabadi, H. (2009). Conceptualizations of justice in climate policy. Climate Policy, 9(1), 88–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaFollette, H. (Ed.). (2002). Ethics in practice (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, J., & Lacey, J. (2006). The ethics of patents on genetically modified organisms. Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics, 8(2), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang, X., Reiner, D., & Li, J. (2011). Perceptions of opinion leaders towards CCS demonstration projects in China. Applied Energy, 88(5), 1873–1885.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littlecott, C. (Ed.). (2008). A last chance for coal: Making carbon capture and storage a reality. London: Green Alliance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longworth, L., Youn, J., Bojke, L., Palmer, S., Griffin, S., Spackman, E., et al. (2013). When does NICE recommend the use of health technologies within a programme of evidence development?: A systematic review of NICE guidance. Pharmacoeconomics, 31(2), 137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marglin, S. A. (1963). The social rate of discount and the optimal rate of investment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 77(1), 95–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, E. M., & Shariff, A. F. (2012). Climate change and moral judgement. Nature Climate Change, 2(4), 243–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzoldi, A., Hill, T., & Colls, J. J. (2011). Assessing the risk for CO2 transportation within CCS projects, CFD modelling. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5(4), 816–825.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medvecky, F. (2012). Valuing environmental costs and benefits in an uncertain future: Risk aversion and discounting. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 5(1), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meinshausen, M., Meinshausen, N., Hare, W., Raper, S. C. B., Frieler, K., Knutti, R., et al. (2009). Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature, 458(7242), 1158–1162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möller, N., & Hansson, S. O. (2008). Principles of engineering safety: Risk and uncertainty reduction. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 93, 776–783.

    Google Scholar 

  • NOAH. (2009). NOAH’s position on CCS as a climate change tool (long version). Friends of the Earth, Denmark. http://ccs-info.org/pos_long.pdf. Accessed 30 March 2013.

  • Nordhaus, W. D. (2007). A review of the Stern review on the economics of climate change. Journal of Economic Literature, 45(3), 686–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacala, S., & Socolow, R. (2004). Stabilisation wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science, 305, 968–972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parfit, D. (1987). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, G. P., Andrew, R. M., Boden, T., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Le Quéré, C., et al. (2013). The challenge to keep global warming below 2°C. Nature Climate Change, 3, 4–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielke, R., Prins, G., Rayner, S., & Sarewitz, D. (2007). Lifting the taboo on adaptation. Nature, 445, 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisarski, A., & Ashworth, P. (2013). The citizen’s round table process: Canvassing public opinion on energy technologies to mitigate climate change. Journal of Climatic Change, 119(2), 533–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin, J. (2008). Stern and his critics on discounting and climate change: An editorial essay. Climatic Change, 89(3), 195–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiner, D. M., & Nuttall, W. J. (2011). Public acceptance of geological disposal of carbon dioxide and radioactive waste: Similarities and differences. In F. L. Toth (Ed.), Geological disposal of carbon dioxide and radioactive waste: A comparative assessment (pp. 295–315). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rimmer, M. (2012). The Doha deadlock: Intellectual property and climate change. The Conversation, 11 December. http://theconversation.com/the-doha-deadlockintellectual-property-and-climate-change-11244. Accessed 15 Feb 2013.

  • Rochon, E., Kuper, J., Bjureby, E., Johnston, P., Oakley, R., Santillo, D., et al. (2008). False hope: Why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate. Amsterdam: Greenpeace International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogowski, W. H. (2010). What should public health research focus on? Comments from a decision analytic perspective. The European Journal of Public Health, 20(5), 484–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayre-McCord, G. (2012). Metaethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/metaethics/. Accessed 7 Sept 2013.

  • Schot, J. (2001). Towards new forms of participatory technology development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 13(1), 39–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, N. (2012). Doha climate talks: Rich nations reject India’s offer on intellectual property concerns. The Times of India, 6 December. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-12-06/developmentalissues/35646306_1_climate-talks-climatenegotiations-iprs. Accessed 18 Feb 2013.

  • Shaffer, G. (2010). Long-term effectiveness and consequences of carbon dioxide sequestration. Nature Geoscience, 3(7), 464–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shue, H. (1993). Subsistence emissions and luxury emissions. Law and Policy, 15, 39–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shue, H. (1999). Global environment and international inequality. International Affairs, 75, 531–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (Ed.). (1994). Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (1999). Practical ethics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singleton, G., Herzog, H., & Ansolabehere, S. (2009). Public risk perspectives on the geologic storage of carbon dioxide. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 3(1), 100–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13(6), 675–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sotoudeh, M. (2009). Technical education for sustainability. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spreng, D., Marland, G., & Weinberg, A. M. (2007). CO2 capture and storage: Another Faustian Bargain? Energy Policy, 35(2), 850–854.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor-Gooby, P., & Zinn, J. O. (2006). Risk in social science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ter Mors, E., Terwel, B. W., & Daamen, D. D. L. (2012). The potential of host community compensation in facility siting. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 11, S130–S138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terwel, B. W., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., & Daamen, D. D. L. (2010). Voice in political decision-making: The effect of group voice on perceived trustworthiness of decision makers and subsequent acceptance of decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 173–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D. (1985). Philosophy and policy. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 14(2), 205–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torvanger, A., & Meadowcroft, J. (2011). The political economy of technology support: Making decisions about carbon capture and storage and low carbon energy technologies. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 303–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Upham, P., & Roberts, T. (2011). Public perceptions of CCS: Emergent themes in pan-European focus groups and implications for communications. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5(5), 1359–1367.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Zwaan, B., & Gerlagh, R. (2009). Economics of geological CO2; storage and leakage. Climatic Change, 93(3), 285–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallquist, L., Seigo, S. L., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Public acceptance of CCS system elements: A conjoint measurement. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 6, 77–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warshofsky, F. (1994). The patent wars: The battle to own the world’s technology. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, J. M., Shaw, R. P., & Pearce, J. M. (2011). Environmental issues in the geological disposal of carbon dioxide and radioactive waste. In F. L. Toth (Ed.), Geological disposal of carbon dioxide and radioactive waste: A comparative assessment (pp. 81–102). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. J., Johnson, T. L., & Keith, D. W. (2003). Regulating the ultimate sink: Managing the risks of geologic CO2 storage. Environmental Science and Technology, 37(16), 3476–3483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wuebbles, D. J., & Jain, A. K. (2001). Concerns about climate change and the role of fossil fuel use. Fuel Processing Technology, 71(1–3), 99–119.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia

    Fabien Medvecky

  2. Division of Earth Science and Resource Engineering, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), QCAT, Kenmore, Australia

    Justine Lacey & Peta Ashworth

Authors
  1. Fabien Medvecky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Justine Lacey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peta Ashworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabien Medvecky.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Medvecky, F., Lacey, J. & Ashworth, P. Examining the Role of Carbon Capture and Storage Through an Ethical Lens. Sci Eng Ethics 20, 1111–1128 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9474-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9474-z

Keywords

  • CCS
  • Climate change
  • Ethics
  • Intergenerational justice
  • Mitigation
  • Responsibility
  • Risk