Hi Michael, I don't believe it is necessary to secure the *consent *of everyone in order for a policy to be ethically permissible. However, given that a geoengineering policy could substantially impact various persons, it would seem unfair to deny such persons an opportunity to have some input. This is not to say that everyone will agree.
Of course, as you note, a public could make bad decisions, but so could individuals or interested groups. I agree that instituting "unattainable ethical standards to block, and or confuse, the acceptance of the reality that we face, can in of itself, be viewed as unethical," but I do not believe that the considerations of justice I have suggested are unattainable standards. Best, Toby Svoboda On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Toby et al., > > I think I have found an historical analogy concerning the issue of consent. > I would rate this analogy a 6 on a scale of 10 for a number of reasons yet > it is the only historical analogy which seems to even come close to a > "universal consent" which I can find. > > The Peace Ballot of 1935 ended up weighing enough in policy decisions that > the effect ended up in the death of 10s of millions of people within 10 > years. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Ballot > > I do believe this is a good example of how destructive it is to have > important and highly complicated issues being decided by a populace which, > due to a lack of expert knowledge, is simply expressing an *emotion.* The > peace ballot was credited by Churchill and others as the main reason why > Hitler was allowed to rearm Germany. > > The Kellogg-Briand Pact does not speak to the universal consent issue yet > it does point out just how the issue of universal ethics can be codified on > one hand and completely ignored in the other hand. Also, a debate on the > consent issue would be well served if we look at how the "consent" is > solicited and codified. The Peace Ballot was clearly heavily weighed in > favor of a particular political party. > > You make references to a number of philosophers yet I do not believe the > ethical structures of non-western societies has been addressed. The > Buddhist philosophy on ethics is as substantial (and problematic) as that > which is proposed by Kant, Rawls and Dewey.....if you are a committed > Buddhist. This argument can be expanded to other belief systems such as > Sufi, Native Americans etc. I am still working my way through the works of > Dworkin and Sen and I would like to reserve further comment after that study > is done. > > Spencer believed in the ultimate perfection of humanity on the basis of > advanced science. And, past historical efforts, such as the Peace Ballot and > Kellogg-Briand Pact, have tried to address issues of both universal consent > and codification in what does seem like an effort to effect a Spence like > perfection of humanity. However, history does show us just how unfruitful > such expectations were and even just how distructive they quickly became. > The vast majority of humanity will always be in contention. Universal > ethics may continue to evolve at the philosophical level, however I can not > see such work changing the deep contentious nature of man. > > Yet, it is important to deal with the ultimate question of survival of most > life on this planet. There is no seeable end to the polutioning of the > atmosphere and thus Climate Engineering will be used or we will > perish. Dealing with that reality is ethical on many levels. Raising > unatainable ethical standards to block, and or confuse, the acceptance of > the reality that we face, can in of itself, be viewed as unethical. > > Thanks, > > Michael > > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Toby Svoboda <tobysvob...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Thanks for your comments, Michael, and apologies for the delayed response. >> I agree that it could be helpful to look more closely at the issue of a >> methane tipping point and to consider the ethics of various geoengineering >> techniques in the light of possible emergency scenarios. In particular, it >> would be helpful to examine how certain responses to emergency scenarios >> compare to one another ethically. Perhaps, given an imminent methane tipping >> point, some geoengineering technique would be less unjust and/or less >> harmful than other available options. But as you suggest, we would need to >> examine various details in order to find out whether this is the case. >> Looking more closely at the ESAS issue could be a way of doing this. >> >> Gregory points out that various ethical standards are available and >> reasonably asks how we are to choose among them to guide our actions. First, >> I would note that there are some deep theoretical affinities among certain >> theorists, especially between Kant, Rawls, and Dewey. Second, while there is >> no doubt some major theoretical differences among some sets of ethical >> standards, there is often also a fair degree of convergence on practical >> issues as well. We tried to show an example of this in our paper by arguing >> that various theories of justice (those of Rawls, Dworkin, Sen, etc.), >> despite their significant theoretical divergences, converge in raising >> problems for SAG. Another example might be informed consent in medical >> ethics. While utilitarians and Kantians, for example, might tell different >> theoretical stories about *why *informed consent is ethically >> appropriate, most of us can agree that it *is *ethically appropriate. So >> it seems to me that we don't always need to settle theoretical controversies >> in order to do work on some issues in practical ethics, since different >> theories often yield similar practical results. There is much more to say >> about this, of course, but I think that gives an indication of how ethical >> considerations of geoengineering can avoid being pointless. >> >> Best Wishes, >> Toby Svoboda >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Hello Dr. Benford et al., >>> >>> The term is cumbersome but is technically precise. I believe that an >>> effort to move from discussing the general means of climate engineering to >>> the specific means is important as it may help in nailing down what is >>> actually possible and thus probable. The cost factor can be viewed through a >>> number of different perspectives depending upon what type of "value" is to >>> be expected for a given "objective". The Mulberry Harbour was the least cost >>> effective long term harbor ever built. Yet, it was cheap for what it did and >>> was priceless during it's short life. >>> >>> If, for example, tropo injection can possibly prevent the need for a more >>> robust means (strato injection) and the accompanying complications of >>> directly effecting non polar regions (both physically and politically) can >>> be limited, the upfront added expense of tropo injection would seem like a >>> good value relative to the objective. The main objective being actually >>> achieving the earliest steps in preventing an imminent wide area arctic GHSZ >>> breaching and doing so with the widest possible level of cooperation. >>> >>> The short wave aerosol effectiveness can be viewed as a positive >>> aspect on a number of levels relative to an initial real world emergency >>> effort. Simply limiting the initial down range extent of the aerosol can >>> quickly provide controlled areas of study and data collection. This, as we >>> know, would need to cover everything from the sea floor biota to the Ozone >>> Layer. And, on a very practical note, we would only have a few months to >>> collect the ocean centric data due to the onset of the arctic winter. >>> Adjusting the technical aspects for the best possible effect could then >>> be incorporated in short order. The initial time aspect is not long term but >>> an emergency response which could then be adjusted for long term (more >>> efficient) means. >>> >>> With all that said and for the purpose of this exploration of ethics, >>> Stratospheric Injection can very well be adopted as the prime technical >>> focus. However, which of the 2 are the most likely to be actually allowed to >>> initially go forward...even in a broadly accepted emergency? I would bet on >>> tropo over strato. I just believe that there is a need to work through the >>> ethical considerations of a "*focused * scientific/technical *emergency >>> protocol*". If that can be done for tropo, a road map for a similar >>> eithical workup for the more complicated issue of strato injection would be >>> in hand. >>> >>> If a meaningful debate can be developed, based upon the assumption that a >>> "widely accepted imminate global climate emergency" is at hand, it may help >>> make clear and important distinction(s) between the realities of an >>> emergency and that of a long term effort. We will most likely need both >>> levels of effort. It is not an issue of "if" an immanate emergency will >>> develop but simply "when". >>> >>> I did choose to use the DoE study in my previous post for a dual purpose. >>> One was to show the massive volume of methane which we are threatened with. >>> The other was to show the remarkable extent to what our global society will >>> go to to retain a fossil fuel economy....We are addicted to fossil fuels and >>> reducing emissions simply will not happen any time soon. The end of that >>> report gives a brief but clear warning as to just how fragile the Arctic >>> methane physical reality is. Yet, none of us have any doubt that, if that >>> area can be industrialized, it will be. >>> >>> Keep in mind that the BP Gulf blowout was a result of hydrates. Also, >>> keep in mind the primary means to deal with the spilled oil was to burn the >>> oil (and methane). We will eventually see that happen in the arctic. An >>> Emergency Climate Engineering Response Protocol would seem to be worth >>> working towards. >>> >>> As to the question of "what system of ethics" should be used, it is >>> important to explore (even through a meta study if needed) that one >>> question. Toby and Wil have started along that path as have others. The >>> overly broad nature of the word "Geoengineering" has made any practical >>> focus difficult. By taking a highly restricted and highly probable real >>> world situation and subjecting that to an informed debate on ethics, we >>> may see the broadest cooperation.... at least for that emergency situation. >>> >>> I expect that the broader issue of long term global environmental >>> stability will require an evolution of philosophical thought in the area of >>> human cooperation. We, as a species, have questions.... and to some degree >>> knowledge....which humans have never been exposed to before. And, fully >>> developing answers to the deeper philosophical questions will take >>> generations. However, without an acceptable emergency response method, we >>> will probably not have the time to reach for those answers. Yes, the >>> complexities of finding a universally acceptable ethical base (beyond >>> Spencer) can seem pointless. >>> >>> And, singing Kumbaya around the campfire does not work. >>> >>> History does, however, show us that rapid intellectual/ethical evolutions >>> (or de-evolutions) primarily happen in response to large and unique social >>> stresses. Yet, human history has no close analogy to a methane tipping >>> point. I have noticed that those interested in using ethical grounds to >>> block Climate Engineering seem to not realize the extent to which we, as a >>> species....life as we know it, are threatened. I do hope that by getting an >>> in depth yet focused debate upon the survival issue, we will see progress on >>> that issue. We, as a species, truly do need to accept that the boat is in >>> fact sinking and that it is to everyone's benefit to get past the initial >>> ethical issues and start bailing water. Once we have some chance at long >>> term survival, we can decide upon the best.....ethical.....means to plug the >>> hole in the boat. If that basic level of cooperation can not be >>> achieved....soon, Herbert Spencer just may end up being the lead >>> philosophical icon. >>> >>> As a related note on plugging the hole (ie. long term energy issue), the >>> National Ignition Lab seems to be involved with some interesting fusion >>> experiments. Here is their home page. >>> https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/missions/energy_for_the_future/life/ >>> It seems that within the next 18 months, their work may produce a measure of >>> sustainable fusion. Even if this is accomplished and the era of fusion has >>> finally dawned, we will need close to 10 yrs to make any dent in the use of >>> fossil fuels. I just wonder if we have 10 yrs. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Gregory Benford <xbenf...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Michael: >>>> >>>> Using Tropospheric Atmospheric Injection using Sulfates (PTAI-S; we >>>> need a better term!) implies far higher expense, as the aerosols fall out >>>> within days vs weeks or months for strato deposition. >>>> >>>> That too is an ethical issue: cost and labor. But when we discuss >>>> ethical issues: what system of ethics? Most seem to assume everybody knows >>>> what the governing ethical principle is. My experience is this varies >>>> wildly. What ethical philosopher to follow? Kant? Rawls? Dewey? Even the >>>> historians (Fleming) seem oblivious that there are many different ethical >>>> standards. Trying to accomodate them while doing engineering at this early >>>> phase seems pointless. >>>> >>>> Gregory Benford >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Toby, >>>>> >>>>> An ESAS Protocal may be a good *experimental debate* as the Eastern >>>>> Siberian Arctic Sea (ESAS) seems to be one of the best known weak-links in >>>>> the planet's ecosystem and it will most likely be the area which will >>>>> produce the first major methane eruption (tipping point). If you need >>>>> citations on the issue of the ESAS situation, please let me know (there >>>>> is a >>>>> rapidly growing library of studies on the issue). An "impending climate >>>>> emergency" is scientifically undeniable at this time. However, no tipping >>>>> point "starting date" can be offered. Some on this forum may believe I am >>>>> over stepping an important line in making that statement. And, to what >>>>> extent we are looking at a climate emergency may be the first logical >>>>> place >>>>> to start a meaningful debate on ethics. I offer a 2008 US DoE study titled >>>>> >>>>> Preliminary Geospatial Analysis >>>>> of Arctic Ocean Hydrocarbon >>>>> Resources >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-17922.pdf >>>>> >>>>> "In this report, conventional oil and gas resources are explicitly >>>>> linked with potential gas hydrate >>>>> resources. This has not been attempted previously and is particularly >>>>> powerful as the likelihood of gas >>>>> production from marine gas hydrates increases. Available or planned >>>>> infrastructure, such as pipelines, >>>>> combined with the geospatial distribution of hydrocarbons is a very >>>>> strong determinant of the temporalspatial >>>>> development of Arctic hydrocarbon resources." >>>>> >>>>> If you scroll down to Figure 3.4, you can easily see the extent of the >>>>> thickness of arctic hydrate stability zones. The white areas are the areas >>>>> of concern for methane release. Figure 3.6 shows submarine permafrost >>>>> from 0 >>>>> to 200 m in depth which is of even greater concern. This report does not >>>>> show the changes in ocean temperature nor areas of ocean >>>>> anoxia/acidification. This report just gives the reader a good idea of the >>>>> massive volume of hydrates potentially available for release. >>>>> >>>>> The best thinking on directly addressing the needs of that arctic area >>>>> seems to point to the initial use of Tropospheric Atmospheric Injection >>>>> using Sulfates (PTAI-S). As you know, other aerosols are under discussion >>>>> such as diatomaceous earth, aluminum as well as engineered nano particles >>>>> etc.. However, let's just focus upon sulfates. Stratospheric Injection is >>>>> possible yet Polar Tropospheric Aerosol Injection-Sulfate (PTAI-S) does >>>>> seem >>>>> like the most probable first effort to be taken due to a number of issues. >>>>> Sulfate use has both positive and negative implications as any aerosol >>>>> will. >>>>> However, it is the best understood means at this time and thus is >>>>> currently >>>>> "what we would have to work with". >>>>> >>>>> I am not ruling out any proposed means of climate engineering. I am >>>>> just offering the most likely means to be used and thus the most >>>>> potentially >>>>> fruitful subject for a focused debate on ethics. >>>>> >>>>> Deployment details are in the area of routine engineering. Some have >>>>> proposed the use of large guns and that is the one means of injection I >>>>> personally hope is avoided due to the sheer lack of PR sensitivity. High >>>>> tethers have multiple potential uses and aircraft are a ready resource. As >>>>> you know, a number of inventive concepts have been suggested. This 1997 >>>>> paper by Hyde,Teller and Wood is the best overview that I have found >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MDE0NTY3NTk0NzY2MTMxMzQ4MjEBMDI5MzkyMDUxOTgxMDI4OTI3OTkBRjg1RkQxOTU3QUE2MkU0MzhBRjc1RkI2MTk5MUMwNzgwMzYyOEJATUJYUDE0LmRzLm1hbi5hYy51awEyAQ&pli=1 >>>>> >>>>> However, I have some questions as to how engineering details would fit >>>>> into a debate on ethics. >>>>> >>>>> As to how PTAI-S compares to other potential methods, in short, there >>>>> are only the few mentioned above that can come close to providing the >>>>> needed >>>>> effect(s). If NOAA were to declare a "Global Climate Emergency" today, >>>>> PTAI-S would be the most likely climate engineering option to be put to >>>>> immediate use. However, and this is profoundly important, when it comes >>>>> to >>>>> tipping points, once they start, there is no human effort that can stop >>>>> them. >>>>> >>>>> I hope this gives you some footing for further debate. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >> >> > > > -- > *Michael Hayes* > *360-708-4976* > http://www.voglerlake.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.
