Toby, I'd like to focus on your third case, in which you argue that stratospheric aerosol injections would violate principles of procedural justice if pursued unilaterally. As you frame it, ANY unilateral action at the international level would violate principles of procedural justice, since non-citizens of the acting state either (a) would not have taken part in the decision process (Rawls), or (b) would not be able to appeal that action (Daniels and Sabin). The US could decide to drop manna from the sky over the entire world, and by definition this would be unilateral and hence unjust. The real culprit, in this instance, is unilateralism rather than climate engineering.
Earlier this year I had an article published titled "Geoengineering and the Myth of Unilateralism" (available free at http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjlsp/cgi-bin/users_images/pdfs/61_Horton%20Final.pdf). As the title suggests, I am deeply skeptical of the threat of unilateral stratospheric aerosol injections (SAI), as summarized in the following extract from the article: the incentive structure faced by a state interested in implementing SAI would strongly discourage unilateral postures that dismissed the need for international agreement and coordination. Any country considering unilateral deployment would find itself tangled in a web of technical and political constraints and steered toward reaching some form of global consensus. Individual incentives may be inadequate to deter unilateralism on their own, but their collective weight is likely to tilt the playing field decisively in favor of multilateral cooperation. For instance, Country B may be sufficiently motivated to accept the costs associated with the termination problem and dispense with efforts to synchronize emissions mitigation policies. But once deployed, a large number of international actors would effectively exercise joint control over any injection system, frustrating any attempt by Country B to pursue a coherent SAI policy managed solely by its national government. Furthermore, any actor opposed to the project could easily (and anonymously) counter its effects using relatively simple means such as release of black carbon, thereby neutralizing the entire scheme. For Country B, the costs of unilateral SAI would exceed the benefits, due to the technical limitations inherent in unilateral deployment of such technology, and as a consequence, interest in SAI would require a multilateral approach. The net result is that states are unlikely to view unilateral deployment as a sound, effective policy option. If unilateralism is the real problem, and unilateralism is unlikely in the case of stratospheric aerosols, then this form of climate engineering is much less problematic than you contend, at least from the procedural justice point of view. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Aug 16, 10:44 pm, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Please allow me a few comments. > > "However, SAG faces > obstacles to meeting these requirements, so it is incumbent upon proponents > of SAG > either to present a version of SAG that is distributively just or to argue > why SAG ought to > be implemented despite its ethical shortcomings." Prevention of a methane > tipping point would seem distributively just for life in general. > "More generally, it is arguably intergenerationally unjust for present > generations to bring about states of affairs that are distributively unjust > for future generations. In other words, one requirement of intergenerational > justice is that present persons not compromise the distributive justice of > future generations." Prevention of a methane tipping point does seem to > comply with this concept regardless of the arguable validity of the concept. > On the subject of procedural justice; > > "Unilateral SAG violates Rawls’ theory of procedural justice, which holds > that a policy is procedurally just only if all persons affected by that > decision have the opportunity to contribute to that decision process." > > The current UN panel on Bio Diversity would seem to be in violation > of Rawls' theory. In fact, no known treaty or policy has ever complied with > this theory. The use of representatives to "contribute to that decision > process" is simply the exercise of political policy. > > Thank you for your work and I hope to see this paper vigorously debated by > the group. > > Michael > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Toby Svoboda <tobysvob...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, the link provided by Masa is an up-to-date version (aside from some > > formatting changes, etc. in the published version). > > > Toby Svoboda > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Masa Sugiyama < > > s-m...@criepi.denken.or.jp> wrote: > > >> Here's the manuscript. (I don't know if this is the most up-to-date.) > >>http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/~kzk10/Svoboda_PAQ_11.pdf > > >> -Masa > > >> On 8月16日, 午前1:04, Dan Whaley <dan.wha...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Is it possible for someone to post the article here? > > >> > D > > >> > On Aug 15, 8:37 am, Toby Svoboda <tobysvob...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > List members might be interested in our recent article on ethics and > >> > > geoengineering: > > >> > > Svoboda, T., K. Keller, M. Goes, and N. Tuana (2011), "Sulfate Aerosol > >> > > Geoengineering: The Question of Justice", *Public Affairs Quarterly* > >> 25:3, > >> > > 157-80,http://paq.press.illinois.edu/25/3/svoboda.html. > > >> > > Although we do not take a position on whether aerosol geoengineering > >> ought > >> > > to be deployed, we examine some potential obstacles to such > >> geoengineering > >> > > satisfying requirements of distributive, intergenerational, and > >> procedural > >> > > justice. Feedback welcome. > > >> > > Best Wishes, > > >> > > Toby Svoboda > >> > > Ph.D. Candidate > >> > > Department of Philosophy > >> > > The Pennsylvania State University > >> > > 232 Sparks Building > >> > > University Park, PA 16802 > >> > > tobysvob...@gmail.com > > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > >> "geoengineering" group. > >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > >> For more options, visit this group at > >>http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "geoengineering" group. > > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > -- > *Michael Hayes* > *360-708-4976*http://www.voglerlake.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
