I don't think anybody has suggested that ethicists represent a 'problem' for 'geoengineering'.
I think many people are trying to understand what the ethicists are up to. There seems to be diversity in that some 'ethicists' try to explicate the range of issues that need to be considered in making ethical decisions whereas others are in the vusiness of offering moral judgments. Through this discussion I have come to see that ethicists ( or at least the ones concerned with understanding what constitutes an ethical decision ) are largely in the same boat as natural scientists with respect to solar geoengineering. Mostly we are in the business of applying existing theory and knowledge to a new domain ( say, solar geoengineering ). This subject domain appears not to raise fundamental new issues for climate science or ethics but there are specific topic areas for which this subject domain motivates further exploration. In the case if climate science, these topic areas include things like - differences between solar and GHG radiative forcing - cloud-aerosol interaction - dynamics of stratospheric particle aggregation - relationship between climate response and spatial and temporal distribution of radiative forcing - stratospheric ozone chemistry and particle interaction - etc I am not sure what the corresponding list is for ethical theory, but this discussion has led me to see more commonality between the ethicists who do not offer moral judgments and the natural scientists. Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu +1 650 704 7212 http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab Sent from a limited-typing keyboard On Nov 17, 2012, at 15:25, "Benjamin Hale" <bh...@colorado.edu> wrote: > Ya know, it’s very hard to engage this discussion. It seems pretty > reactionary: any position that is any respect critical of geoengineering is > somehow treated as, at best, not serious and, at worst, a threat to science. > That’s a bit surprising since, as Christopher puts it, most ethicists only > ever seek to open up important values discussions and assess a narrow line of > argument. Sure, we’re critical, but it’s generally in an effort to make > better sense of what concerns are really in play. > > When ethicists argue these value dimensions, methodologically it is a > priority in our field to do so in a way that is reasonably careful. So, for > instance, we try to avoid broad statements about how many more people will > die in one instance than another. A decent place to start thinking about > these problems might be to read Christopher’s book – the collection that > started this whole discussion -- since there are a number of positions taken > there, none of which are so black and white as the “so-called” scientists on > this blog allege. > > In any case, if any of you think that professional ethicists right now > present a problem for geoengineering, I feel fairly certain that you’ve got > another thing coming as soon you seek to deploy any of these technologies. > Small scale modeling is one thing; larger scale field experiments are > another. When the wider public catches wind of these? Expect blowback. Big > time. Sorting out the ethical dimensions of geoengineering in advance ought > to be a high priority. > > Benjamin Hale > Assistant Professor/Graduate Director (ENVS) > Philosophy and Environmental Studies > > University of Colorado, Boulder > Tel: 303 735-3624; Fax: 303 735-1576 > http://www.practicalreason.com > http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com > Ethics, Policy & Environment > > > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:13 AM > To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au > Cc: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering > Subject: Re: [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 > > The use of "playing god" in these discussions is somewhat opaque to me. (I > have been accused in the blogosphere of wanting to "play god", but outside of > a theatrical sense, I am not sure what that means, since I do not believe in > a god that takes positive action to intervene in the lives of humans or our > planet.) > > So, google to the rescue: > > Playing God > Ethics A popular term for the usurping by physicians—or by the health care > system—the role of a higher power or God—e.g., rationing limited medical > resources in underserved areas or underinsured populations, deciding who is > entitled to a limited number of organs for transplantation, or terminating > life support in the terminally ill or in a persistent vegetative state > Genetics A popular term for the ethical issues regarding manipulation of the > human genome and whether gene therapy usurps God’s omnipotence > Medspeak A generic term for the role that doctors, especially surgeons, play > in saving lives > Segen's Medical Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved. > http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Playing+God > > So, it seems that a core meaning has to do with people put in the position of > making difficult decisions that they would rather not have to make. The > doctor would rather have more organs to transplant, but is forced to make the > difficult allocation decision. > > I think the real issue here is not "playing god" but "playing community". We > don't want doctors to make this decision but we want the community, society, > to set up rules and criteria that would tell doctors how these scarce > resources should be allocated. > > When people say someone is 'playing god' in the context of 'geoengineering', > are they responding to the fear that a small number of people will make a > decision that should be made by the broader society? Or is there really some > theological meaning that some decisions are the domain of 'god' and not > decisions that humans should make? If the latter, not being a theologian, I > simply do not understand what that could possibly mean. > > Should we be saying that we are afraid that 'geoengineers' will 'play > community', or is there some additional meaning to the phrase 'playing god'? > > A decision not to make the transplantation decision is itself a > transplantation decision. The decision not to solar geoengineer is itself a > solar geoengineering decision. These are not decisions we can avoid. We > should work to make these broadly inclusive societal decisions, but we cannot > pretend that humanity can avoid making these decisions. > > (Aren't the tiny groups trying to prevent research themselves trying to make > decisions for the broader society?) > > _______________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > Our YouTube videos > The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the planet? > Geophysical Limits to Global Wind Power > More videos > > > > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Robert Tulip <rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au> 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. > > -- > 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.
