One interesting way to view the issue of ethics is to let the basic tenets of ethics guide the selection of the primary 'goals' of large scale global warming mitigation efforts. I used this approach in crafting the IMBECS Protocol Draft <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9VXozADC0IIE6mYx5NsnJLrUvF_fWJN_GyigCzDLn0/pub>. The relevant section in the draft is below.
Section 1) Ethically Negating the Moral Hazard of Global Warming Mitigation This analysis first explores the philosophical possibility that IMBECS based GWM can be ethically employed while negating the moral hazard of encouraging sustained or increased FF use due to GWM. The primary focus of the IMBECS strategy is to replace FFs, on a global scale, with subsidized carbon negative biofuels derived from marine biomass. Profits from the sale of the non-biofuel IMBECS commodities provides for the biofuel subsidy. The following sections explores how carbon negative fuel appear to negate the moral hazard of GWM. Sec 1.1) Mapping out the Moral Hazard Paradox: The primary opposing views of metaethics revolves around the issue of ones’ perspective. To qoute http://moralphilosophy.info/ <http://moralphilosophy.info/metaethics/>: “Perhaps the biggest controversy in metaethics is that which divides moral realists and antirealists. Moral realists hold that moral facts are objective facts that are out there in the world. Things are good or bad independent of us, and then we come along and discover morality. Antirealists hold that moral facts are not out there in the world until we put them there, that the facts about morality are determined by facts about us. On this view, morality is not something that we discover so much as something that we invent.”. In the context of GWM, the highly complex matrix of the socioeconomic, political and environmental realities, encompasses both ‘realistic’ and ‘antirealistic’ valid moral views. This creates a co-realistic moral paradox. Sec 1.2) Solving the Moral Hazard Paradox: Solving paradoxes requires identifying the point of fallacy in the paradox and then avoiding that point. The premise that fossil fuels are currently irreplaceable, at the global scale, is the fallacy which needs avoiding as FFs are the core cause of GW and FFs can be replaced with current technology. The overall issue of large scale mitigation of global warming offers up a blinding array of relative rights or wrongs which can possibly be reduced to one core question and a simply stated strategy. Is the continued use of FFs, on a global scale, scientifically, morally or ethically supportable? If not, ending the FF era should be the prime objective. Any large scale mitigation strategy which can support the primary objective of replacing FFs should be given priority. Until transformative improvements in energy storage and or distribution occurs, production of vast amounts of carbon negative, renewable, low cost, portable biofuels are needed to supplant FF use. The carbon negative fuel benefits of bioenergy/carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS) is well recognized at the IPCC Working Group 3 level. Under a global carbon negative fuel scenario, the failure to increase fuel production and use would be considered unethical due to the global warming mitigation potential of BECCS. Thus, production of carbon negative biofuels appears to ethically negate the moral hazard of mitigating FF induced global warming. As an important adjunct to the above observations, the IMBECS biofuel production method would allow each nation to be energy independent through operating their own IMBECS operation within the STCZ of their choosing. Obviously, the geopolitical importance of such widespread energy independence would be transformative on multiple sociopolitical levels. This *ex parsimoniae* approach to the ethics issue does seem to be worth consideration. If anyone on this list wishes to offer a rebuttal or contribution to the logic, please let me know. Best regards, Michael On Thursday, July 31, 2014 5:31:04 PM UTC-7, kcaldeira wrote: > > > Unfortunately, failure to deal with ethics also makes it viable to > continue greenhouse gas emissions. > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Failure to deal with ethics will make climate engineering ‘unviable’ >> >> http://gu.com/p/4vd69 >> >> Failure to deal with ethics will make climate engineering ‘unviable’ >> Environmental philosopher warns major ethical, political, legal and >> social issues around geoengineering must be addressed >> >> Graham Readfearn in Sydney >> 22:00 CEST Thu 31 July 2014 >> >> Geoengineering, also known as climate modification, falls into two >> categories - carbon dioxide removal or solar radiation management. >> Photograph: ISS/NASA >> Research into ways to engineer the Earth’s climate as a last-ditch >> response to global warming will be rendered “unviable” if the associated >> ethical issues are not tackled first, a leading environmental philosopher >> has warned. >> >> Prof Stephen Gardiner, of the University of Washington, Seattle, told the >> Guardian that so-called geoengineering risked making problems worse for >> future generations. >> >> Gardiner was in Sydney for a two-day symposium that aimed to grapple with >> the moral and ethical consequences of geoengineering, also known as climate >> modification. >> >> Later this year, the United States’ National Academy of Sciences is due >> to publish a key report into the “technical feasibility” of a number of >> proposed geoengineering methods, which fall into two categories. >> >> Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) tries to cut the levels of the greenhouse >> gas in the atmosphere and store it, for example, in trees, algae or >> underground. >> >> A second category, known as solar radiation management tries to lower the >> amount of energy entering the Earth’s atmosphere from the sun by, for >> example, spraying sulphate particles into the stratosphere or whitening >> clouds. >> >> Gardiner said political inertia was one reason why the world had failed >> to respond meaningfully to climate change and rising greenhouse gases. >> >> “There’s a temptation for the current generation particularly in the rich >> countries to take benefits now and pass the severe costs on to the future,” >> he said. >> >> “Arguably that’s one of the big reasons we have failed so far on climate >> policy because we have succumbed to that temptation. >> >> “But when it comes to geoengineering, one of my biggest worries is that >> we might pick geoengineering as an intervention that replicates that >> pattern. >> >> “We might try and adopt a quick technological fix but one that holds the >> worst impacts for a few decades without much attention to what happens >> after that. What does happen after that could be even worse than what would >> unfold if we just allowed the negative climate impacts in the near term to >> materialise.” >> >> He said that it was time to engage with the ethical and moral questions >> now that major scientific institutions and a growing group of researchers >> were starting to consider geoengineering. >> >> “We are still in the early stages and very few people have written and >> talked about this. The good news is that the major scientific reports >> generally do signal that they think there are major ethical, political, >> legal and social issues that need investigating. The crucial thing is >> whether we get beyond saying that as a throwaway line to actually dealing >> with those implications. >> >> “Unless you can deal with these social and political issues then any kind >> of geoengineering would be unviable anyway – or at least any remotely >> ethically defensible version would be unviable.” >> >> In 2009, a Royal Society report called for more research into >> geoengineering and concluded that CDR techniques “should be regarded as >> preferable”. >> >> A proposed experiment to test a way to deliver particles into the upper >> atmosphere using a balloon and a one kilometre-long pipe was cancelled in >> 2012 after it was reported that two of the scientists involved had >> submitted patent applications that were similar to the techniques being >> proposed. >> >> A study earlier this year in the journal Nature Communications comparing >> five different proposed methods of climate engineering found all were >> “relatively ineffective” while carrying “potentially severe side effects” >> that would be difficult to stop. >> >> Prof Jim Falk, of the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute at the >> University of Melbourne, told the symposium there were more than 40 >> distinct methods that could be described as geoengineering, including >> planting large numbers of trees and painting roofs white. >> >> He said: “There’s a huge array of ideas and they go from local scale to >> intermediate scale to a global scale. The scale, the impacts and the risks >> all go up together.” >> >> • Graham Readfearn’s travel and accommodation was paid for by the >> symposium organisers. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
