Hi Michael, Thanks for your feedback. I think that decisions about whether or not aerosol geoengineering *ought *to be deployed in some situation would depend on a host of issues that would need to be examined in detail, such as whether there is an impending climate emergency, what the specific details of the deployment proposal are, how that proposal compares to other available strategies, etc. This would be important to do as more concrete proposals emerge. So I believe we are in agreement when you note that you would "like to see the debate continued with focus upon *specific* emerging science and engineering developments." However, at this early stage of geoengineering research (and even earlier stage of research on geoengineering ethics), I'm not sure that would have been the most useful focus for our paper.
Moreover, I do think that broader ethical considerations can be helpful in their own right. For one thing, they might guide the crafting of specific proposals that are sensitive to various ethical issues. For example, one might argue that PSAI-S is ethically preferable to other available options in a situation in which some tipping point in the climate is imminent, perhaps because the outcome of PSAI-S would be less unjust than the outcomes of other options. I view our paper as sketching some potential ethical problems faced by aerosol geoengineering but also leaving the door open for concrete proposals that either avoid or substantially diminish these potential problems. But before one can avoid or diminish those problems within some specific proposal, one needs to be aware of what the potential problems are. Finally, I would stress again that, despite the risks of injustice, aerosol geoengineering might turn out to be the ethically preferable option in certain cases, depending on what the alternatives are. Josh, as for the acronym "SAG," no negative connotations were intended, but a different acronym would be fine with me as long as it refers to the same technique. Thanks, Toby On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Toby et al., > > D-5-W is a common intravenous (I.V.) fluid given to a trauma patient. It is > a 5% Dextrose (sugar) solution in water. This solution helps prevent the > body from converting stored body fat into needed energy (and thus preventing > a strong acid influx-and thus preventing a cascade of physiological > problems). Polar Stratospheric Aerosol Injection-Sulfide (PSAI-S) has > somewhat of an analogy to the use of D-5-W. In that, the use of such a > (simple) technique can prevent a cascade of global environmental problems. > Keeping the polar regions cold can prevent the need for > more...invasive...procedures. > > I point this out as a means to help clarify this debate. Geoengineering has > so quickly evolved, in both scientific and engineering understanding, that > the broad use of a term such as "SAG" is counterproductive for use in > detailed discussions. I go to this length of explanation, not as a means of > correction, but as a means to help sharpen the focus of this debate. > > Mike points out the reasonable logic of starting slow (and early) and > building up climate intervention means as conditions warrant. Others have > pointed out the potential use of different aerosols in relation to different > atmospheric circulation patterns to produce even seasonal effects. > > Your paper does not take a close look at the physical reality of just how > close we are to seeing a methane tipping point. You have, however recognized > that such a situation would rearrange the debate...thank you. I feel that we > must focus the debate on dealing with the worst case scenario before we have > the freedom to set out long term and somewhat "Idealized" standards. > Crawling into a wrecked and smoldering car to simply start an I.V. of D-5-W > on the bleeding driver is not good quality basic health care. But, it can > lead to just that.....given time and lots of early, intelligent and > cooperative work. The core concept of "Geoengineering" is not "good quality > basic health care" for the planet, but simply a means and way to better care > for the planet until we can move beyond fossil fuels. > > Unfortunately, the concept of "Geoengineering" is so new that few people > truly understand the means, motives and even objectives of the science and > engineering. I personally see it as Geo Trauma Care (GTC). Yes, the fossil > fuel economy has traumatized this planet and I see the potential of PSAI-S > as potentially being the equivalent of an emergency I.V. procedure. However, > the long-term prognosis of our existence on this planet is predicated upon > the universal use of renewable energy, not on the use of climate > engineering. > > Your work (as well as Wil Burns) on raising the different ethical aspects > of the debate is helping us get there. Ideally, I would like to see the > debate continued with focus upon *specific* emerging science and > engineering developments. Polar aerosol injection is different than "global" > SAG. > > We must build the practical knowledge and techniques of climate engineering > as the effects of the fossil fuel economy will be with us for generations. > Inventing an I.V., developing D-5-W and testing the two only when the car > crashes is neither reasonable nor logical. Creating social fences against > climate engineering can be a close analogy. > > Thanks, > > Michael > > > > > > -- 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.
