The decision of the Kavala Municipal Council on the storage of CO2 that took place on 07/07/2025 is a YES for the project with a failed in my opinion communication effort to paint this YES into NO. In essence it is a positive position for the project as the results recorded on the card below show:
In the Kavala Morning newspaper we read that the decision of the Municipal Council is negative unless the Greek government provides guarantees:
“
- on whether carbon capture and storage can be effective for the climate, since it allows industry to continue to burn large quantities of fossil fuels,
- to take all necessary measures to protect human life and the environment, close to an urban centre and an island with a high development of tourism and the primary sector,
- to provide significant offsetting benefits to the local community in terms of percentage of revenue, jobs, environmental footprint projects
- for more information on the results.
“
Let’s analyse these conditions/guarantees in order.
#1
But can we start from the working assumption that the Greek government will influence the US “Drill Baby Drill policy”, i.e. mine, burn and bury all the fossil fuels you can? What will be the climate effectiveness of the 3 million tons of CO2 we bury per year in Prino compared to the approximately 40 billion tons of CO2 we produce on the planet? To bury what we produce we would need around 20,000 facilities like the one in Prinos on the planet, whereas today we don’t even have 50 in operation, around 6 in Europe. All this position only helps is to support the actions of the oil industry lobby – the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers Europe (IOGP Europe) – to get its positions on further funding for Carbon Contracts for Difference and the establishment of a CCS Bank to manage these contracts.
So this is the first ball that the City Council throws at the podium. No Greek Government can give any guarantee here, it cannot de facto do so.
#2
This working hypothesis is also a bit comical. The proximity of the reservoirs is for our region in combination with the high seismicity the most strategic factor, 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙧, 𝞽𝞸 𝞳𝞴𝞮𝞲𝞭ί 𝞹𝞸𝞾 𝞹𝞺έ𝞹𝞮𝞲 𝞶𝞪 𝞼𝞽𝞪𝞵𝞪𝞽ή𝞼𝞮𝞲 𝞽𝞸 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙬, the key to saying no. Is it a coincidence that even the originators of the technology, the Norwegians who also have huge economic benefits from CCS, are building similar facilities 150+ km from their shores? The monitoring (monitoring) and observatories that need to be set up are high tech that does not exist today. They need, robots, satellites, sensors, and eventually huge computer centers to record ,analyze and evaluate the data. Assuming the investment is made, do you think that this kind of infrastructure and jobs will exist/be created in Tempe country? What is the point of demanding something from someone who cannot guarantee it?
So this is the second ball that the City Council throws at the podium. No Greek government can give this guarantee for the safety of a facility in an earthquake-prone area and 3 miles from the coast… Let’s get serious! The decision is political!
#3
Here the councillors are jumping into a large and dangerous field in the so-called “Violation of the Precautionary Principle”. This principle is not compensated. In this age of technology and development, big projects promise progress. But behind the promises, there are risks that are neither calculated nor addressed. Society is being asked to say ‘yes or no’ – without knowing the real price. This is not just a technical failure, but above all a moral failure.
When risks are uncertain but potentially catastrophic, avoiding them is a moral obligation. Waste, geological repositories, irreversible environmental impacts – all of these are “dumped” on people who are not yet born. Is this fair? When the few benefit and the many are at risk. The economic elites take the profits while the citizens bear the burden. This is called inequality, not progress. As Max Weber used to say, ‘It is not enough to have good intentions; you have to take responsibility for the consequences’. When the consequences are unknown or uncontrollable, responsibility becomes a risk on human lives.
But above all it is also a question of morality and respect. When for reasons of individual utility people and nature are used as a means to economic ends, respect is lost. We in Thassos will not become the field of “collateral damage”. We are a society with a voice and dignity. Out of respect and moral responsibility, out of the right to knowledge and participation as well as out of our unwavering obedience to the precautionary principle we refuse any kind of compensatory measures. We do not want to build our future on injustice and uncertainty.
#4
the only argument that I consider absolutely correct.
Conclusions
The behavior of the 21 councillors who voted YES was a classic example of what we call “Cover Your Arse” politics or CYA politics. This decision will be remembered for generations. It is “I’m a little pregnant politics”. The 21 took steps to protect themselves in case of trouble or failure and to absolve themselves of any liability.
What are the messages they sent us?
- “I warned” or “I reported it.”
- Avoidance of liability: It is preferred that decisions are delayed, delegated or shared among many, so that no one can be held responsible. In other words, in simple Greek, we throw the ball into the stands and turn the page. Not like this!
- False transparency: pretending that all procedures are transparent and understandable, when the real purpose is to avoid liability.
- It’s a culture based on fear. They left in the air, the Mayor of Thassos, the Municipal Council of Thassos and all the residents of Thassos and many from Kavala. Voters will not forget this in future elections.
- In my opinion, this policy lacks morality because it undermines trust, cooperation and a sense of responsibility. Instead of honest communication and collective responsibility, it creates a climate of fear, opacity and a mentality of self-protection.
