Robert, Are you suggesting that aerosol geoengineering should be deployed now, as your tourniquet analogue seems to imply? That would be a rather controversial opinion. Note that "we ought immediately to adopt some climate change strategy that does not involve aerosol geoengineering" is a normative claim about what we ought to do (e.g., cut our emissions substantially), not a prediction about what we will do. So the claim can be true even if you think we won't get serious about cutting emissions.
Also, the fact that the research of ethicists could be abused by non-ethicists in some (unspecified) way to stymie research does not support your earlier contention that ethicist are trying to stymie research. Best, Toby Svoboda On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Robert Tulip <rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au>wrote: > Toby, I have read your article *Is Aerosol Geoengineering Ethically > Preferable to Other Climate Change Strategies? *It confirmed my > assessment that ethicists are making a largely negative contribution to the > debate on geoengineering. Even so, such ethicist input is worthwhile to > clarify argument, in view of Benjamin Hale’s point about possible broader > public views.****** > ** ** > I consider your qualified conclusion “we ought immediately to adopt some > climate change strategy that does not involve aerosol geoengineering” to be > morally equivalent to a first aid provider saying we ought to adopt some > trauma response to a spurting artery that does not involve an emergency > tourniquet, against medical advice. Your email below, with its wait and > see conclusion, putting geoengineering off to ‘near-future scenarios’, > abets those who are opposed to immediate climate management action, typical > of disdainful academic timidity.**** > ** ** > The situation is urgent. The Arctic is melting and presenting dangerous > feedback risks, as seen in the recent New York super storm. Aerosol > piloting is a moral imperative. Your caveated analysis, concealing the > knife in your conclusion, serves to bolster the position of those who would > stymie research.**** > ** ** > Aerosol measures are necessary but not sufficient. Methods to mine > carbon from the air for fuel and food production are likely to be central > to longer term climate sustainability. But the ethicist input that I > have seen fails to engage with such a transformative agenda. Instead, > it generally fails to comprehend the real cost-benefit equations for > climate management, giving credence to baseless scaremongering and ignoring > the emergency of the climate peril. I can well imagine negotiators at > the forthcoming Doha climate conference using articles like yours to > deflect the need for research. > ** ** > Robert Tulip**** > ** ** > ** ** > *From:* Toby Svoboda <tobysvob...@gmail.com> > *To:* rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au; geoengineering < > geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > *Sent:* Sunday, 18 November 2012 6:01 AM > > *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 > **** > ** ** > Robert, > > Could you please point to examples of ethicists "who are trying to stymie > research [and] are motivated by dubious agendas?" I don't know of any who > meet these conditions. As Christopher and Benjamin already implied, > ethicists who work on geoengineering are much less naive than you seem to > suggest. > > If anyone is interested, I attach a pre-print version of a paper of > mine--"Is Aerosol Geoengineering Ethically Preferable to Other Climate > Change Strategies?"--forthcoming in the journal *Ethics & the Environment*. > In it, I address several of the points Robert raises. The possibility that > geoengineering would be ethically permissible (or even obligatory) in > certain near-future scenarios is one that ethicists can and do countenance. > > Best, > Toby Svoboda > > -- > Toby Svoboda > Assistant Professor > Department of Philosophy > Fairfield University > 1073 N. Benson Rd. > Fairfield, CT 06824**** > ** ** > ** ** > -- Toby Svoboda Assistant Professor Department of Philosophy Fairfield University 1073 N. Benson Rd. Fairfield, CT 06824 -- 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.
