Hi All
About the problem mentioned by Robert that critics of geo-engineering
say that it will reduce efforts at CO2 reduction. I refer people to
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWparachutes.htm
In World War 1 many Royal Flying Corps pilots were killed because they
were not allowed to use parachutes even though they were used by France,
Germany and the Americans. The reason was that it 'might reduce their
fighting spirit'.
I would consider reducing my effort on geo-engineering when sufficiently
large reductions in CO2 emissions are reported. Has anyone heard of any?
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195
WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
On 17/11/2012 05:12, Robert Tulip wrote:
Ethics and Geoengineering
Recent debate about whether to allow experiments to manage global
climate has raised the profile of the ethical permissibility of
geoengineering. I don't think a lot of the ethical debate properly
addresses the critical issues.
The precautionary principle says that an action is unethical where its
costs, broadly understood, have significant risk of outweighing its
net benefits.A further, if more metaphysical, ethical consideration is
whether humans have a right to ‘play God’ by endeavouring to manage
the global climate.The precautionary principle seeks to factor
externalities into quantitative economic and ecological analysis.The
more metaphysical argument about rights opens hypothetical spectres,
comparing geoengineering to a Frankenstein monster, or an
uncontrollable sorcerer’s apprentice.
These ethical issues were raised as long ago as the 1970s by writers
such as James Lovelock, with the Gaia Hypothesis speculating about the
risk of uncontrollable algae blooms, and introducing the importance of
ecological externalities in decision making.
The ethical dilemmas for geoengineering need to quantify facts and
risks.Some relevant points include
·Humanity added 34 gigatonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere in 2011,
actively destabilising the global climate
·Emission rate is growing exponentially, supported by a political
backlash against science
·Climate-related major events, such as storms, droughts and floods,
have nearly tripled in annual number from 300 to 800 since 1980, 3.3%
per year, according to data published by the reinsurer Munich Re,
apparently due to anthropogenic global warming
·Arctic melting, methane release, weather events and ocean
acidification pose massive risks to climate, biodiversity and human
security
These trends pose extreme dangers, including war and economic
collapse.Ethical response to global warming has to start from
recognition of the urgency of stabilising the planetary
climate.However, we find that the debate appears to be occurring in a
surreal parallel universe.Small experiments, such as the Haida salmon
algae work, are vilified as criminal.Funding for research is absent,
even though Nobel Laureates writing for the Copenhagen Consensus
Center identified research and development of new technology as the
most cost-effective climate mitigation strategy.
Something strange is going on here.It appears the so-called ethicists
who are trying to stymie research are motivated by dubious
agendas.Firstly, a main argument advanced against technology research
is that it undermines the need to reduce emissions.This contention
elevates emission reduction to a sort of moral totem that must be
upheld regardless of whether it is practical or effective.But the
problems are that emission reduction has little prospect of being
achieved, and even if the fanciful targets were met, it would not
stabilise the climate. The political consensus on emission reduction
has been cruelled by its apparent incompatibility with economic growth
and vested interests, and has completely failed.
And yet, the ineffectual mentality persists in some quarters that we
have to make sacrifices, that using less energy is the key to climate
management, despite the powerful drivers arrayed against any change to
business as usual.Critics of geoengineering are effectively saying
‘don’t do something that might work, because it stops us from doing
something we know doesn’t work’.
Climate change has potential to cause more suffering in coming decades
than the Second World War did.People who actively campaign against
research into new technology to mitigate climate change could be
considered as the moral equivalent of appeasers, well-meaning dupes
who lack understanding of reality.
So-called ethicists need to understand orders of magnitude.Climate
change is a big ethical problem.Geoengineering research design and
piloting is a small ethical problem.Any risks in geoengineering can
readily be managed, and are massively outweighed by the risks of not
proceeding.
There are indeed big ethical issues raised by geoengineering, first
and foremost whether we want humanity to flourish on our planet or
not.Technology for global climate management, like it or not, will
inevitably be central to human flourishing in a peaceful and stable
global ecosystem.
Robert Tulip
*From:* Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
*To:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
*Sent:* Sunday, 11 November 2012 11:33 AM
*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.
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
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.
