Presentation on theme: "Group 3: Geological storage of CO 2 Seminar I Farzad Basirat, Mattias Hogvall, Tito Maldonado, Cosima Hotzy, Daniel Sopher 12/02/2015 Group 3: Ethics in."— Presentation transcript:
Group 3: Geological storage of CO 2 Seminar I Farzad Basirat, Mattias Hogvall, Tito Maldonado, Cosima Hotzy, Daniel Sopher 12/02/2015 Group 3: Ethics in research – Seminar I
Group 3: Geological storage of CO 2 Introduction Potential Harm from the Geological Disposal of CO 2 Risks to local populations by fast leakage Risks from long-term leakage of CO 2 into the environment Micro-seismicity and earthquake risks To reduce CO 2 emissions to air from point sources.. CO 2 is captured as concentrated high pressure fluid CO 2 is transported via pipeline to a selected, permitted injection site CO 2 is injected to a deep reservoir (>800 m) to be in liquid or supercritical state. CO 2 remains in storage for long time to sequestrate by dissolution and mineralization. Possible storage formations: saline aquifers, depleted oil and gas reservoirs, coal beds unbreakable etc. Holloway S Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 2007;365:1095-1107 Motivation Global warming is a serious threat to environmental systems and human life Caused by increased concentrations of CO 2 in the atmosphere as a result of human activities What is Geological Disposal of CO 2
Group 3: Ethics in research – Seminar I Group 3: Geological storage of CO 2 Should the local population be informed and have the right to choose if a CO 2 storage site will be located in their area? Some thoughts: Information → Power → Rights The ethical issue then is related to the communication of such information. How is the quality of the information? Too technical, pop-science, etc. Clear, transparent, political skewed, etc. How should the flow of the information be? Researchers → People Researchers → Decision-makers → People
Ethical dilemmas: If the cost of CO 2 storage should go to deployment of green energy. The possibility to store CO 2 could postpone research on green energy. If the need of green energy is restricted, funding's for research on this could also be more restricted. If we can store CO 2, why should we try to switch to green energy when it is costly? Group 3: Ethics in research – Seminar I Group 3: Geological storage of CO 2 Is it right to store CO 2 rather than switching to green energy straight away?
Yes, it’s okay Risks of CO 2 storage sites are better understood than risks of releasing CO 2 We know which region is affected. We know which people are affected. We can minimize the risks by selecting appropiate site locations. → better deal with a defined risk now than with a unpredictable risk in the future We have no right to expose future generations to our waste. No, it’s not okay Our obligations towards people living today are more important. Future generations will find a risk-free solution. Future generations benefit from today’s (our) progress – they should deal with the problem. Group 3: Ethics in research – Seminar I Group 3: Geological storage of CO 2 Present versus future people Is it okay to make life more difficult for people living today for the benefit of those in the future? Is it okay to expose today’s generation to the risks of CO 2 storage sites so that future generations are not exposed to the risks of CO 2 in the atmosphere?
Is it important to preserve nature as it is? If in the process no humans are harmed? Why are environmental ethics not as well defined as ethics in other aspects of society? Anthropocentrism: To a large extent humans as sentient beings, capable of making choices have placed themselves at the centre of philosophical discussions of ethics. Nature is vast and resilient: For a long time people have generally believed that humans are not capable of changing the environment on a large scale. Group 3: Ethics in research – Seminar I Group 3: Geological storage of CO 2 Is it important to preserve nature as it is? No! Above all else human suffering should be reduced, therefore it is ok to change the environment if required. Damaging the environment in activities such as forestry and natural resource extraction acts to reduce human suffering and improve global living standards. Yes! Humans need an unspoilt environment to flourish and be happy. If we afford animals the same rights as people and assume the all objects in the world do have their own worth. The natural world is a resource to humans which we should preserve for future generations.