Carbon Capture and the Ethical Dilemma

black ship on body of water screenshot
Photo by Chris LeBoutillier on

Carbon capturing technology exists. The question among philosophers is whether or not using such tools is morally sound. Removing carbon from the atmosphere with machines makes consumerism appear less harmful than it really is. On the other hand, natural climate solutions (NCS) are a less costly and more ethical alternative to geoengineering that involve restoration and protection of our organic environment. NCS’s are simple solutions such as halting rainforest destruction or rebuilding drained wetlands. Which solution is the right one?

“Carbon Capture & Storage projects in the power sector would cost between €60–€90 per tonne of carbon dioxide abated, the equivalent of around $69-$103 per tonne.” Carbon Capture & Storage Association, 2019

An estimated 29 gigatons of carbon is produced by fossil fuel burning and land use annually. Combine that with carbon capture & storage costs of approximately $100 per ton, and to capture anthropogenic emissions each year would cost 2.9 trillion dollars.

What is Geoengineering?

Scrubbers carry out different processes depending on what elements need to be removed from outgoing air or water. Small portable HEPA air scrubbers like BlueDri by AerIndustries are sold at around seven hundred dollars for indoor projects that require the removal of toxins. Someone might use one of these for remodeling a room that once contained asbestos. HEPA means the machine meets industry standards by removing 99.97% of particles with a diameter of 0.3 micrometers or more.

air scrubber
Air scrubber. Photo by AerIndustries.

Types of Scrubbers

Wet scrubbers, dry scrubbers, and electrostatic precipitators are three main categories of industrial scrubbers. Each kind can be further developed to remove specific substances. The following diagram shows a wet scrubber called an amine scrubber, which uses amines to separate hydrogen sulfide and CO2 from natural gas. Amine scrubbers are also used in oil refineries.

air scrubber diagram
Diagram from Global CCS Institute.

The Dilemma

Now for the fun stuff. As you can imagine, there is a yin and yang to carbon capture. I find myself in the middle of this moral battleground. A bill passed in early 2018 incentivized carbon capture and storage for the fuel industry by offering tax credits.

Obviously geoengineering should be- and already is- implemented in the industrial sector. It’s working. But on a broader scale there could be unforeseen consequences. A large portion of carbon emissions may be filtered from power plants, but if habitat destruction prevails in other parts of the world is the problem actually solved? Even natural climate solutions have limitations. For instance, you can’t build a forest in the desert in hopes that it would offset emissions because the forest won’t survive. Then there’s the cost factor. The time factor. The hypothetical man behind the curtain (consumerism).

Should people be responsible for emissions? Alternatively, should companies be forced to meet emissions standards or go under? Let me know what you think in the comments!


  1. Josh Gross | The Jaguar

    Ultimately, if we’re going to survive as a species we’ll need to fundamentally re-organize our societies Equal rights for women needs to be a top priority, as this is the most ethical way to reduce population growth. We also need greater access to education, more horizontal power structures (wealth and privilege need to be more equitably shared by everyone), and less consumerism if the future’s going to be worth living in.

    That said, I’m supportive of any stopgap that can reduce carbon emissions in this critical age. Obviously natural climate solutions should be prioritized most highly, since they have innumerable cultural, biodiversity, and economic benefits over and above removing carbon from the atmosphere. But if technological solutions can help too, then I’m all for them – as long as those in power don’t use carbon capture devices as excuses to continue being horrible.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Jess T.

      Thanks for the input! Yeah, my first thought was how industries would use technology as an excuse for producing emissions without being responsible for a clean-up plan. I think the general consensus is that we need fundamental change in the way things work in the US in order to get to the root of the issue.

      Liked by 3 people

    1. Marcus Ampe

      The greatest problem in this world is the egoism and capitalist consumerism without respect for the environment. People should become more aware of their impact to their surroundings. The ecological footprint has to come down.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s