Ocean Carbon Storage: A value trade-off

CIE4510 Climate Change & Ethics

Group 19: 4005899 - Robin van Rijn, 4127978 - Caithlin Marugg, 4253612 - David Koenders
4694767 - Gijs van den Munckhof, 4721659 - Judith Brummelkamp

Summary
Carbon Capture and Ocean Storage (CCOS) is a way of reducing the amount of carbon dioxide
going into the atmosphere. It seems like a possible solution to mitigate the effects of climate change. It
is easy to realize using current energy infrastructure and the effects are immediate. However, one could
argue that CCOS is merely solving the consequences and not tackling the source of the problem. There
are uncertainties coming with this new technology as well. An unplanned leakage of CO2 would have
unknown and catastrophic results.

In order to determine whether the use of CCOS to mitigate is ethically justifiable an utilitarianism
is used. The consequences of CCOS have been determined in order to make up a net balance at the
end. The values are divided into instrumental values, such as effectiveness, efficiency, reliability,
robustness & costs, and terminal values, such as safety, human health & sustainability. The main
limitation can be found within the uncertainty of the consequences. Using objective consequences which
fairly represent all actors involved is impossible. Meaning compromises have to be made.

It can be concluded that CCOS is an effective method to reduce greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere mitigate current climate effects. However, the uncertainties coming along with the method
make it unsuitable to use. There are other methods to mitigate current climate effects, with less
uncertainties concerning consequences.
Introduction
Global warming is one of the most pressing problems of current times, with severe
consequences such as temperature and sea level rise. This problem is caused by the increase in the
emission of greenhouses gases. Greenhouse gases absorb and emit radiation, thereby ´trapping´ heat
instead of allowing it to radiate into the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an example of such a greenhouse gas and makes up a big part of the
emissions of greenhouse gases. For example, 82% of the total greenhouse gases emissions in the
United States in 2015 consisted of carbon dioxide (EPA, 2017).

A reduction of these greenhouses gases would help mitigating global warming. Carbon Capture
and Ocean Storage (CCOS) is a way of reducing the amount of carbon dioxide going into the
atmosphere by storing it in the oceans. By applying CCOS more carbon dioxide can be stored in the
ocean and carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere can be reduced. Storing carbon dioxide in shallow
water causes it to bubble, leaving the gas to rise to the surface like a carbonated drink. However, starting
at depths around 500 meters the pressure is high enough to store carbon dioxide in a liquid state. And
when dissolved in deep water (1.500+ meters), it will stay put at approximately the same level.
Furthermore, carbon dioxide is more compressible than water. So if carbon dioxide is stored at extreme
depths (3.000+ meters), the pressure is high enough to ensure the liquid carbon dioxide has a higher
density compared to the surrounding water (Figure 1). This causes the liquid to sink to the ocean floor,
where it remains in liquid form (Friederici, 2010).

Figure 1 Carbon dioxide and sea water density versus depth (Rackley, 2017).

There are two common ways to execute CCOS. The first method uses a moving ship, stored
with CO2, that injects the CO2 into the ocean at depths between 1.000 and 2.000 meters. (M. Ozaki,
1997) The second method injects CO2 into the ocean from a floating platform, using a hanging pipe.
CO2 needs to be transported from shore to the platform by a ship. However, this method can inject CO2
into the ocean at depths of 3.000 meters (M. Ozaki, 1995). The costs of using the floating platform
technique is lower and the CO2 can be stored at greater depths. However, the environmental impact of
dispersing C02 at one spot on the sea bed is higher than spreading the C02 in a wider area by using a
moving ship.

Using CCOS to mitigate global warming seems like a possible solution. However, one could
argue that CCOS is merely solving the consequences and not tackling the source of the problem. On
the other hand, it is easier to realize CCOS compared changing the entire existing energy production
infrastructure in, necessary to tackle the source of the problem. Another benefit is that the effects of
CCOS are immediate. But, since this is a new technology there are uncertainties. A leakage of the
captured CO2 could have catastrophic results. This could be compared to the low probability but high
risk leaking of nuclear power plants. It is also uncertain what kind of effects CCS will have on local plant-
and wildlife at the bottom of the sea.

As can be concluded by the introduction above, CCS has both advantages and disadvantages.
Some of which have yet to found. Using CCS to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
seems like a solution, but at which costs? From an ethical point of view this problem will be the centre
of this paper. Which leads to the research question that will be the central focus of this paper:

How ethically responsible is it to mitigate climate effects with ocean carbon storage in liquid form
(CCOS)?

Method: consequentialist approach to values

The more traditional view is that the development of new technologies is a value neutral task.
In the Handbook of Ethics, Values and Technological Design (van den Hoven et al, 2015) the authors
make a case for value sensitive design. From this perspective the impact of a technology on humanity
is not only determined by the features of the design, but also by the context in which the technology is
used and by the interaction with its users. This is directly applicable to the case of CCOS, it is important
to think about the moral and societal values which are influenced by this technology. Humans cannot
be seen separately from this technology, the technological innovations that we make will influence our
lives and bestow values upon us. It is therefore important that we think carefully in which direction we
want to innovate to mitigate the effects of climate change and whether ocean storage is worth further
developing.

In this essay the term value indicates a degree of importance. A value can be a broad preference
for a certain outcome, therefore values reflect a person’s view of what is right or wrong. Reflection upon
values is often used in normative ethics to investigate how one should act morally (University of
Wisconsin, 2017). We think it is therefore interesting to consider values in the case of deep ocean carbon
storage.

In The Nature of Human Values, social psychologist Rokeach makes a distinction between
instrumental values and terminal values (Rokeach, 1973) When it concerns technology, engineers have
a tendency to focus on instrumental values, because they are specific and easy to measure. However,
these are not the most important values. They are merely the means by which the terminal values are
achieved. Terminal values are the overall goals that we hope to achieve. Of course there is no problem
if all values are perfectly in accordance with each other. But for deep ocean carbon storage both the
instrumental values and the terminal values are conflicting. Some values are even in conflict with
themselves.

In this essay we choose a consequentialist line of argumentation, considering the good and bad
consequences of deep ocean carbon storage. The technology is considered morally right when it creates
net positive consequences. We decide if the consequences are positive by considering to which extent
values are included. Of course this approach has its shortcomings, which will be treated in the discussion
at the end of the essay.

Instrumental values of ocean carbon storage

Effectiveness and efficiency
The main function of deep ocean carbon storage is to mitigate the effects of climate change by
sequestration. If we assume carbon emissions to be constant and assume a 4% discount rate, direct
injection at 1700m deep in the ocean would already avoid more than 99% of total global warming costs.
Therefore it is very effective at fulfilling its function in an economical way (Caldeira et al, 2001).

The efficiency of a technology compares the ratio between the desired effect and the effort
required to achieve that effect, which can be distinguished as the difference between input and output.
One of the advantages of ocean carbon storage is that existing infrastructures such as pipelines and
bore platforms from the oil industry can be used, saving money and time compared to other new
technologies that might need an entirely new infrastructure. But it is important to keep in mind that the
depth of carbon injection is a major factor in determining the retention efficiency (Caldeira et al, 2001).
Because at greater depth the carbon will become denser than ocean water and this will keep it more in
place. However, deeper injection also requires more energy. Therefore the technology will slow down
carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere, but on the other hand more carbon dioxide will be
released due to the energy costs of the injection (Kheshgi et al, 1994).
Reliability and robustness
If we would only consider the values effectiveness and efficiency of deep ocean storage, one would
easily become enthusiastic about the promise of this technology. However, we also need to consider
the values reliability and robustness. As is often the case with new technologies, not a lot is known about
how reliable and robust the system is.

A technology is considered reliable when it performs its function without failure over a longer
period of time. Since only small-scale experiment in situ have been performed we do not know a lot
about this. Reliability of a technology is often proven in an empirical way, this has not yet been possible
for this technology due to protests.

But one of the biggest uncertainties is how deep ocean sequestration will work in unforeseen
circumstances. We have an incomplete understanding of how adding minerals will impact other parts of
our ecological system. The deep ocean is a too unpredictable and chaotic system to understand
completely.

Costs
Another issue that comes with CCOS are the costs involved. In the USA the costs of using CCS will be
paid by citizens and companies. If a country reaches its allowed emissions, CCS can be used to keep
industry going without having to buy emission rights from other countries. This undermines the whole
idea of the emission trading scheme (ETS), and whether this is what we want is another question (David
et al, 2000). Also, the money spend on CCOS cannot be used for other solutions for the actual problem.
All the money spend on CCOS could also be used to increase efficiency of green energy and/or
decrease costs of such green technologies to give two examples.

Terminal values
The instrumental values mentioned above form the means to reach a higher goal: the terminal
values. The most important terminal values to consider in ocean carbon storage are safety, human
health, environment and sustainability.

Safety: new distribution of risks

Safety is a value that we strive for in a lot of our actions, even though it is not always in an explicit way.
The term ‘safety’ can sometimes be explained as the absence of risk, but in reality it is almost impossible
to entirely eliminate risk. Therefore safety can best be described as ‘acceptable risk’ (Hansson, 2003).
But this definition raises new questions, as this boundary is very subjective. In science we always have
to deal with a certain amount of uncertainty. This could lead to problems, since consequences are never
certain it is always safer to do nothing.

An example of this paralyzing problem are the attempts to perform large in-situ experiments for
deep ocean carbon injection. In order to get a better understanding of the effect of ocean carbon storage,
experiments were performed in laboratory in Japan, Norway and the US to see how the carbon dioxide
would behave in water and to investigate the effect on some sea creatures. However, the deep-ocean
is a complex environment and empirical data was needed to prove that this technology works in the real
world as it does in a laboratory. An international consortium of scientists was formed to perform an in-
situ experiment (de Figuerido et al, 2003). The idea was to connect a smaller pipe from a ship to an
existing pipeline and bring 50 tons of liquid carbon into the deep sea near the Kona coast of the Island
of Hawaii over a period of 2 weeks. The project would cost $5 million. But as word got out about the
experiment, it had to deal with significant opposition. Environmental organisations protested fiercely,
and so did residents and fishermen. Because of the fierce opposition, the project could not continue.

After the execution of the previous plan had failed, the consortium developed a second plan for
a similar experiment in the Norwegian Sea. The amount of liquid carbon to be released was diminished
significantly to approximately 5 tonnes. After the Norwegian Pollution Control had already approved the
plan, the Greenpeace Rainbow Warrior arrived to protest the experiment. The Greenpeace press
release stated:
“This experiment is not about better scientific understanding – it’s about vested interests attempting to
ensure that the fossil fuel industry has a secure future. Research into ocean dumping is taking money
and attention away from the real solutions to climate change – phasing out the fossil fuels, which release
greenhouse gases, and replacing them with renewable energy such as solar and wind power.”
(Greenpeace, 2002)

In the end the experiment got halted by the environment minister of the Norwegian government.
Because large-scale in situ release of CO2 is controversial and meets a lot of opposition, only small-
scale experiments (with less than 100 litres of carbon) have been executed so far (Giles, 2002).

Why is large scale experimentation not possible? To explain it as a simple Not-In-My-Backyard-

issue, would disregard the complexity of the matter. A lot of it has to do with the distributive injustice that
is caused by releasing carbon dioxide locally. While it is in all of our interests that the amount of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere diminishes, local fishermen and inhabitants protested. The moral acceptability
of the risk in this case does not only have to do with the risk itself, but also with the voluntariness,
distribution and availability of alternatives (Hansson, 2003). The experimentation was initiated by an
international group of experts and approved by the national governments. Local groups were not
involved in the process and this hindered public acceptance. To the local groups it feels like procedural
injustice: the national government decides to take action but they do not get a vote. Even if the global
situation improves by putting carbon dioxide in the deep sea, the local risk is increased. This new
distribution of costs and benefits is not in favour for the people living in the proximity of the reservoir.
The effect of less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be diminished on a global scale. But for
example if the system behaves different than was expected and the carbon dioxide would be suddenly
released into the atmosphere, this would cause a local major health hazard. Also there is a small
possibility that all aquatic life would die unexpectedly from the carbon, this would leave fishermen without
jobs and locals without food.

On the other hand the Precautionary Principle in the Rio Declaration finds no excuses in the
uncertainty. Environmental issues often have to deal with large uncertainties. We can never prove
precisely to what extent anthropogenic activities have had an effect on climate change, just like we can
never say with certainty what the effect of deep ocean carbon storage will have. But according to the
precautionary principle: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific
certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental
degradation.” (United Nations, 1992) This means that even if we are unsure about the precise effects of
mitigation strategies such as ocean carbon storage, we still have an obligation to take action. Not
knowing everything is not an excuse. In science we often have to find ways of dealing with uncertainties.
One strategy for dealing with uncertainties is the Bayesian belief that probability can be determined by
prior knowledge of conditions related to an event. In order to better understand cause-and-effect
processes in-situ carbon release needs to be performed by experts. And a second strategy is to use
consensus building to quantify risks. The research setup was determined by a collaboration of
intercontinental oceanic and chemical experts from universities that had to reach a consensus. So one
could argue that the uncertainties were covered as much as is possible.

But even though both strategies to deal with uncertainty were applied correctly, this was still not
enough to create public acceptance for ocean storage. This is probably the case because the moral
acceptability also highly depends on the alternatives that are present. There are many other options for
carbon storage which seem to have less risk. Recently more efforts for mitigation are geared towards
putting carbon dioxide in geological formations deep underground instead of in the ocean (IPCC, 2006).

Human health: more valuable than aquatic life?

Physical well-being clearly is an important terminal value. Living conditions and desirable ways of living
are related to an healthy and suitable environment. Any manipulations to the nature could lead to
undesirable conditions and could accordingly damage the environment and thus human health
(Shahbazi et al, 2016). If we consider that most carbon emissions we emit now into the atmosphere will
end up in the ocean eventually anyway, what is the difference in putting it into the ocean immediately?
From this point of view ocean carbon storage will only diminish the disadvantageous effects to the
environment in the atmosphere and therefore better human health.

In the current situation, the climate is changing and thus the environment. This will, in the long
term, most likely be detrimental to human health. Combined with the current CO2 concentration in the
air, it seems we have to act and for example use CCOS to slow down climate change and reduce the
CO2 concentration. However, what if CCOS is even more detrimental to human health? It basically
comes down to whether we want to keep on suffering a little bit for a long time, or use CCOS and risk a
more detrimental environment or a clean, stable environment.

Sustainability: cleaner atmosphere but polluted oceans

Currently CO2 levels in the open sea are already being influenced by the higher amount of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere. Where the sea surface is in contact with the atmosphere, a higher amount
of carbon dioxide is being absorbed into the ocean than before the Industrial Revolution. This makes
the sea water more acidic. The acidity of the ocean has a direct relation to the amount of carbonate in
the water (Friederici, 2010).

This acidification could have dramatic consequences for aquatic life. It would cause calcium
carbonate structures to dissolve such as the shells of sea creatures and corals. If the carbon would stay
in one place, this would not be such a significant. issue, but carbon will spread into the rest of the
ocean. Deep ocean and currents are difficult to understand in behaviour, but play an important role to
determine how long it takes for the pool of carbon dioxide to mix with the ocean water.

What’s more, up to half of the CO2 stored will diffuse through the ocean back to the atmosphere
in about 500-1000 years (Schmidt, 2007). In 2006 the German government’s scientific Advisory Council
on Global Change (WBGU) opposed storing CO2 in seawater because ‘the risk of ecological damage
cannot be assessed and the retention period in the oceans is too short’. This clearly is the Precautionary
Principle at work. Injecting CO2 into the oceans would cause inevitable and perhaps even irrevocable
damage to deep-water ecosystems.
Indirectly, other ecosystems would be affected as well because of CO2 flows (Hare, 2008). The fish will
be eaten by creatures on the land, and like a domino effect the higher carbon content in the sea life will
ultimately also damage us humans who will eat this fish.

From this it is safe to conclude that the environment will in the best case keep its status quo and
in the worst case ecosystems will be severely damaged or will die. Is it ethically appropriate to damage
the environment to solve a problem that we, humans, have caused ourselves? We do not believe so.
Even though we are at the top of the food chain, this does not mean that we are free to do whatever we
want. We still have a responsibility to protect the environment and other life on earth.

The term sustainability has a lot to do with what we leave behind for future generations. As is
famously stated in the Brundtland Commission report: “Sustainable development is development that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs”. (Bruntlandt, 1987) If ocean carbon storage is only a temporary solution, the problem might be
even bigger for future generations, e.g. increased climate change, increased CO2 in the atmosphere
ánd damaged ecosystems. A term that helps out here is intergenerational equity or temporal justice.
This is the concept of fairness or justice between different generations.

In environmental contexts two concepts are often used: the ‘weak sustainability’ perspective
and the strong perspective. The first one suggests that losses to the environment can be offset by gains
in economic progress. The latter one suggests that no amount of economic progress can justify a
damaged environment. Both perspectives have received critique. The weak sustainability perspective
should be rejected as we do not know what will happen in the future. If we are all dead, economy does
not matter anymore. And according to the Stern Review, even from an economical point of view the
benefits of early climate change action outweigh the costs of not doing anything. The cost of strong
action now is around 1% of the GDP, whereas the cost of not doing anything carries a risk of 5-20%
GDP every year (Stern, 2008).

The strong perspective has also been criticized, because it could possibly override moral
concerns that matter for those alive today. According to some it is society’s optimal choice to maximize
welfare of current generations and equity of future generations should be discounted for (Beder, 2000,
Beckerman 1994). One famous opposer to the strong perspective is economist Nordhaus. He thinks we
shouldn’t apply the 1.4% discount rate from Stern, but a higher discount rate of around 5%. This
assumes the future generation to be a lot wealthier and therefore promotes a more modest strategy to
climate mitigation (Nordhaus, 2007)
 How can the economics of climate change be applied to ocean carbon storage? If we choose
to store carbon in the ocean, people in the present would have to pay for this. The current generation
will make a monetary sacrifice for future generations. We believe strong action now is worthwhile, since
the process of destroying our planet is irreversible and cannot merely be seen as merely an economic
problem.

But storing carbon emissions now does not mean that the carbon is disappeared forever. There
is a possibility that the carbon emissions are re-released into the atmosphere within the next 500 years
or so. If the carbon is slowly re-released into the atmosphere and the amount of carbon dioxide is
reduced by then or we have developed a technology that can easily filter carbon from the air, ocean
carbon storage does not seem like such a bad option. But if the carbon would be re-released within a
short period of time (when carbon emissions are expensive) and a lot of it comes into the atmosphere
at once, this would have disastrous effects for future generations.

Conclusions and recommendations

In this paper we have used an utilitarian approach to weigh the benefits and disadvantages of
ocean carbon storage considering the most important values.
First we considered the instrumental values. Using CCOS to mitigate climate effects will reduce the
amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Using existing infrastructure for CCOS is a safe
investment. Meaning CCOS scores well on the values of economically effectiveness and efficiency.
There are also less positive sides to this method however. The technology is not robust and reliable
when compared to other technologies. Ocean carbon storage brings high risks to the environment when
executed poorly. The lack of hard results on reliability and robustness of this technology with in-situ tests
causes a lot resistance of local inhabitants and environmental organisations. Without these test results
safety becomes a big issue due to a lot of uncertainties concerning short-term and long-term
consequences.

We also considered the more important terminal values. In the case of ocean carbon storage
the values safety, human health and sustainability all play a significant role. While the safety of the
atmosphere improves the safety of the ocean decreases. There is also a new distribution of risks as
locations in proximity to the carbon reservoir will carry more risk, while benefits of the technology will be
spread globally. This will put a strain on public acceptance. The technology will improve human health
now as the amount of carbon in the atmosphere will diminish. But this will be at the cost of endangering
the oceanic environment. Also it is unsure how the safety of future generations is affected when the
carbon is possibly re-released into the atmosphere.

The value sustainability is in conflict with itself. Sustainability has to do with what we leave
behind for future generations, and we would leave behind a better atmosphere but more polluted ocean.
Also the next generation would have to figure out what to do with the carbon dioxide that we leave
behind in the ocean.

After weighing the pros and cons we would not recommend the implementation of ocean carbon
storage as a mitigation strategy, since there are other safer and more sustainable alternatives.

Discussion
Utilitarianism was used as an ethical framework in this essay. However, there are limitations to
this theory. For example, it is impossible to objectively measure whether the net outcome of all the
consequences are positive as this differs for everybody. From some points of view CCOS might have a
net positive outcome under utilitarianism, meaning CCOS would be a suitable solution to mitigate climate
effects.

The consequences used to make up the balance are also subject to discussion. The conclusion
states that CCOS is better not used currently given its uncertainties concerning safety, short-term
consequences and long-term consequences. These consequences are uncertain because too little tests
have been done to give conclusive results. Leaving the actual consequences up for discussion. Further
tests would be necessary to determine the conclusive consequences of CCOS. It should be noted that
it is incredibly hard to research all possible consequences of a method. How these tests are conducted
is up for discussion as well. Consequences are determined by the timescale used in the test, by the
parties involved and by the used perspective.

Furthermore, the distribution of the consequences has not been taken into account. Some
consequences concern the collective, other concern individuals (or small groups of people). Some
consequences carry over different generations.

It can be concluded that using simple, conclusive and decisive consequences to make up a
balance is a difficult, possibly impossible, task. Therefore it is important be examine the used
consequences and make sure they do not cause an imbalanced view of the problem.
References

Beckerman, W. (1994)S. Sustainable Development: Is it a Useful concept? Environmental Values 3, no.

3 p191-209. doi: 10.3197/0963217194776679700.

Beder, S. 2000. Costing the Earth: Equity, Sustainable Development and Environmental Economics.
Journal of Environmental Law, 4, 227-243.

Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Report of the World Commission on environment and development:" our
common future.". United Nations.

Caldeira, K., Herzog, H. J., & Wickett, M. E. (2001, May). Predicting and evaluating the effectiveness of
ocean carbon sequestration by direct injection. In Proceedings of First National Conference on Carbon
Sequestration, Washington, DC (pp. 14-17).

David, J., & Herzog, H. (2000, August). The cost of carbon capture. In fifth international conference on
greenhouse gas control technologies, Cairns, Australia (pp. 13-16).

De Figueiredo, M. A., Reiner, D. M., & Herzog, H. (2003). Ocean carbon sequestration: a case study in
public and institutional perceptions. Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, 1, 799-804.

EPA. (2017). Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Retrieved on December 6th 2017 from:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

Friederici. (2010) Ocean Carbon Sequestration: The World’s Best Bad Idea. The Pacific. Retrieved on
December 10th 2017 from: https://psmag.com/social-justice/ocean-carbon-sequestration-the-worlds-
best-bad-idea-2352

Frolov, S. V., Gellermann, W., Ozaki, M., Yoshino, K., & Vardeny, Z. V. (1997). Cooperative emission
in π-conjugated polymer thin films. Physical review letters, 78(4), 729.

Giles, J. (2002). Norway sinks ocean carbon study.

Green Peace. (2002). Ocean dumping of carbon dioxide. Retrieved on 2nd of January 2018 from
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/ocean-dumping-of-carbon-dioxid/

Hansson, S. O. (2003). Ethical criteria of risk acceptance. Erkenntnis, 59(3), 291-309.

Hare, B. (2008). CO2 disposal in the ocean is a dangerous distraction. The Guardian. Retrieved on
10th of December 2017 from:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/jun/18/carboncapturestorage.carbonemissions1.

IPCC. (2006) IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. International Panel on
Climate Change.

Kheshgi, H. S., Flannery, B. P., Hoffert, M. I., & Lapenis, A. G. (1994). The effectiveness of marine CO2
disposal. Energy, 19(9), 967-974.

Nordhaus, W. (2007). A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. Journal of
Economic Literature 45: 686–702.

Rackley, S. A. (2017). Carbon capture and storage. Butterworth-Heinemann.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free press.

Schmidt, C. W. (2007). Carbon capture & storage: blue-sky technology or just blowing smoke?.
Environmental health perspectives, 115(11), A538.
Shahbazi, A., Nasab, B.R. (2016). Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and its Impacts on Climate
Change and Global Warming. Journal of Petroleum & Environmental Biotechnology 7:291. doi:
10.4172/2157-7463.1000291.

Stern, N. (2008). The economics of climate change. American Economic Review, 98(2), 1-37.
United Nations (1992). Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio
de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992. New York: United Nations.

University of Wisconsin. (2017). General Philosophy : Ethics (Moral Philosophy) and Value Theory.
Madison Library. Retrieved on 2nd of January 2018 from
https://researchguides.library.wisc.edu/c.php?g=178198&p=1487671

van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P. E., & van de Poel, I. (2015). Handbook of ethics, values, and
technological design. Springer Netherlands: Imprint: Springer,.