The idea that "ethical merit" can be diagnosed before we know much about how it works, and how well, is...useless. I find it curious that the ethicists want to jump on a subject when it's still barely begun. Reminds me of a decade ago for SRM, about which we still know little, because we don;t do experiments.
Gregory Benford On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:06 AM, RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > "The wide range of geoengineering technologies currently being discussed > makes it prudent that each technique should be evaluated individually for > its ethical merit." > Amen. - Greg > > ________________________________ > From: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > To: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > Sent: Sat, November 10, 2012 4:34:02 PM > Subject: [geo] Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised > by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - > Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wiley Online Library > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.198/abstract > > Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar > radiation management and carbon dioxide removal > > Christopher J. Preston > Article first published online: 8 NOV 2012 > DOI: 10.1002/wcc.198 > > Abstract > > After two decades of failure by the international community to respond > adequately to the threat of global climate change, discussions of the > possibility of geoengineering a cooler climate have recently proliferated. > Alongside the considerable optimism that these technologies have generated, > there has also been wide acknowledgement of significant ethical concerns. > Ethicists, social scientists, and experts in governance have begun the work > of addressing these concerns. The plethora of ethical issues raised by > geoengineering creates challenges for those who wish to survey them. The > issues are here separated out according to the temporal spaces in which they > first arise. Some crop up when merely contemplating the prospect of > geoengineering. Others appear as research gets underway. Another set of > issues attend the actual implementation of the technologies. A further set > occurs when planning for the cessation of climate engineering. Two cautions > about this organizational schema are in order. First, even if the issues > first arise in the temporal spaces identified, they do not stay completely > contained within them. A good reason to object to the prospect of > geoengineering, for example, will likely remain a good reason to object to > its implementation. Second, the ethical concerns intensify or weaken > depending on the technology under consideration. The wide range of > geoengineering technologies currently being discussed makes it prudent that > each technique should be evaluated individually for its ethical merit. > > WIREs Clim Change 2012. > doi: 10.1002/wcc.198 > > -- > 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. -- 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.
