Toby: >I simply make the standard assumption that cuts in emissions would be >preferable to geoengineering if there is still time for the former to be >effective.
The vital question of greatest importance is whether sufficient emission cuts are PLAUSIBLE on any timescale of use before calamity descends. Recall that current emissions are exponentially rising. That's an ethical issue of profound importance that seems ignored in all this talk. Gregory Benford On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Jamais Cascio <cas...@openthefuture.com> wrote: > there’s gonna be blowback. > > > This, I think, is the observation that should be at the root of the > discussion about ethics and geoengineering. This is not a debate about > whimsical notions of right and wrong, divorced from hard-nosed reality. > Talking about ethics here means talking about how to anticipate and > (ideally) minimize the potential for blowback, given the uneven impacts of > geoengineering. We have to recognize that, in a system as complex as the > climate, there's no way that an intervention will be universally and equally > good for everyone. Some places are going to fare better than others, and > some places may be harmed, even compared to a no-geoengineering scenario. > > The ethical quandaries of geoengineering are far more about balancing > relative impacts than about any grand notion of "playing god" or whatnot. > When both the costs and the benefits are unequally distributed, there will > be political conflict. How much localized harm is too much? What if the > places being harmed are low-income, low-political-power regions? Conversely, > what if the developing world is helped the most, but the US or Europe sees > measurable harm? Who decides when we stop? What happens when your choice > isn't listened to -- and you believe (rightly or wrongly) that > geoengineering is doing your nation great harm? > > There are myriad questions about liability, blame, and fear, rational and > otherwise. One of the observations I made in my talk on the politics of > geoengineering at the National Academies of Sciences a couple of years ago > was "desperate people do desperate things" (I know that Ken picked up that > line for at least one of his subsequent talks). I meant it then as a warning > that there could well be attempts at geoengineering even if the potential > for harm outweighs its benefits; it should also be taken as a warning that > if we don't pay attention now to the potential for blowback, we'll be > dealing with its consequences. > > -Jamais Cascio > > > > > > > > On Nov 18, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Benjamin Hale <bh...@colorado.edu> wrote: > > Well, look, not to press, but since this seems to get under your skin, I > might as well. > > AT&T most certainly had a legal department. None of the research in which > you were engaged would’ve gotten off the ground without passing through > legal. The legal department, no doubt, would’ve been aware of all relevant > laws, as well as any relevant political controversies. In telephone > research, one can’t imagine much that would be particularly controversial, > but there probably were a few things that raised fundamental questions – > maybe something about the rights of one researcher to import or export > findings from another lab, say. Those kinds of questions are the kinds of > questions that ethicists who work in responsible research conduct raise, > though they do so less with an eye toward to law and more with an eye toward > what is right. I think, in other words, that it’s probably also false that > AT&T never grappled with challenging research ethics questions. If you never > encountered an ethicist, that probably just speaks more to the cloistering > of your particular job than to the reach of ethics into the laboratory. > > Beyond this, however, research into geoengineering is a far more complicated > undertaking. Depending on the nature of the research proposed -- whether, > say, through models or field experiments -- it may require further > consideration of impacts on vulnerable populations, much in the same way > that sociological research sometimes impacts populations, or even > demographic or ethnographic research impacts populations. It may also affect > sensitive ecosystems. These are the kinds of things, again, that ethicists > are concerned to address, and we can either help with that task, so that > research can get off the ground without trampling the rights of others, or > hinder that task, so that dangerous research never sees the light of day. > > Sure, if you’re just fantasizing about spraying particles into the sky from > the comfort of your armchair and you’re calling this “research,” then this > isn’t particularly controversial. Go ahead. Have a great time researching. > But if you’re actually doing something with that research – perhaps > affecting people or wildlife – you’d better get your ethical ducks in a row… > because as I said, there’s gonna be blowback. > > Peace, > Ben > > 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: euggor...@comcast.net [mailto:euggor...@comcast.net] > Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 1:02 PM > To: Benjamin Hale > Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; christopherpreston1...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [geo] Re: 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 > > Great, terrific; then there is nothing more to discuss. Thank you. Good > discussion > > Somehow I missed it all. I never met an ethicist in a 55 year career of > transformative research and development, half of it at AT&T Bell Labs. It > was all about providing the best and least expensive telephone and video > service everywhere including at the bottom of the various oceans. The big > requirement was that the telephone doesn't break when it falls off the desk > or the lasers for the digital repeaters last for 25 years at 18,000 feet > down. No ethicist could have taught how to do that. Fortunately my scuba > gear stayed in the box and the system was retired without a single failure. > > In contrast the French and English systems had very early laser failures and > AT&T came to the rescue. I doubt they used ethicists; at least they did not > admit it. > > > -.gene > > ________________________________ > > From: "Benjamin Hale" <bh...@colorado.edu> > To: euggor...@comcast.net > Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com, christopherpreston1...@gmail.com > Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 11:07:00 AM > Subject: RE: [geo] Re: 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 point below is that ethicists do in fact already play an important role > _inside the lab_ and _in the development of scientific research_, not just > after the fact or with regard to implementation. That’s what IRBs do, that’s > what professional codes are in place for, and that’s what many practical > ethicists write about. > > 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: euggor...@comcast.net [mailto:euggor...@comcast.net] > Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 8:31 AM > To: Benjamin Hale > Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; christopherpreston1...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [geo] Re: 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 > > > Why do you persist in ignoring what I and others say? I have said clearly > there is a role for ethicists and many others when it comes to > implementation of a technique in the world outside the laboratory of > geoengineering technology development but it is not needed in the laboratory > during early R&D. Scientists exercise controls for safety etc. They do not > need ethicists to tell them how to do experiments or what safety measures > are needed in the laboratory. Cut it out and stop repeating the same > claptrap. > > ________________________________ > > From: "Benjamin Hale" <bh...@colorado.edu> > To: euggor...@comcast.net, christopherpreston1...@gmail.com > Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:52:28 PM > Subject: RE: [geo] Re: 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 > > Every major scientific organization has codes of ethics to which their > practitioners and researchers must abide. Almost all major research > institutions have Institutional Review Boards which are committed to > ensuring that scientific research meets with basic ethical protocols. There > are reams of articles on the ethics of research and on the perils of not > attending to the multitudinous ethical concerns in play. Ethics is not in > any respect limited to the implementation of technologies and it will not go > away, no matter how much you may wish it to. > > 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 ofeuggor...@comcast.net > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:10 PM > To: christopherpreston1...@gmail.com > Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [geo] Re: 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 > > > Nobody says it is hostle. Ethics just has no role in influencing research > and development of basic principles of geoengineering. As soon as you say > 'course of action' and apply it to geoengineering you have lost the > argument. What you are talking about is implementation and geoengineers will > not decide that but will participate in discussion with others including > ethicists. Give up the transparent argument. It doesn't become ethicists. > > ________________________________ > From: "Christopher Preston" <christopherpreston1...@gmail.com> > To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:11:20 AM > Subject: [geo] Re: 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 > > Yes....there are activist groups set on "preventing research" and trying to > "stymie" progress in understanding geoengineering. > > Ethicists, however, do something much different....generating discussion > about values, uncovering the complexities about participation and just > distribution of goods, looking for both moral benefits and moral costs of a > proposed course of action, seeking ways to broaden the conversation. > > There is a much richer discussion here that we can all participate in as > research into geoengineering picks up pace......but it requires abandoning > the assumption that ethics is always hostile to scientific research. > > Christopher > > On Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:34:01 AM UTC, andrewjlockley wrote: > 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 view this discussion on the web > visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/wBkt8mSdkpcJ. > > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email > togeoengineering+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 > togeoengineering+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. > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Jamais Cascio > cas...@openthefuture.com > Open the Future - with enough minds, all tomorrows are visible > http://www.openthefuture.com > > “It is the business of the future to be dangerous.” –Alfred North Whitehead > > > -- > 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.
