[geo] New Paper on Ethics and Geoengineering
List members might be interested in our recent article on ethics and geoengineering: Svoboda, T., K. Keller, M. Goes, and N. Tuana (2011), "Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering: The Question of Justice", *Public Affairs Quarterly* 25:3, 157-80, http://paq.press.illinois.edu/25/3/svoboda.html. Although we do not take a position on whether aerosol geoengineering ought to be deployed, we examine some potential obstacles to such geoengineering satisfying requirements of distributive, intergenerational, and procedural justice. Feedback welcome. Best Wishes, Toby Svoboda Ph.D. Candidate Department of Philosophy The Pennsylvania State University 232 Sparks Building University Park, PA 16802 tobysvob...@gmail.com -- 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.
Re: [geo] Re: New Paper on Ethics and Geoengineering
Yes, the link provided by Masa is an up-to-date version (aside from some formatting changes, etc. in the published version). Toby Svoboda On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Masa Sugiyama wrote: > Here's the manuscript. (I don't know if this is the most up-to-date.) > http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/~kzk10/Svoboda_PAQ_11.pdf > > -Masa > > On 8月16日, 午前1:04, Dan Whaley wrote: > > Is it possible for someone to post the article here? > > > > D > > > > On Aug 15, 8:37 am, Toby Svoboda wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > List members might be interested in our recent article on ethics and > > > geoengineering: > > > > > Svoboda, T., K. Keller, M. Goes, and N. Tuana (2011), "Sulfate Aerosol > > > Geoengineering: The Question of Justice", *Public Affairs Quarterly* > 25:3, > > > 157-80,http://paq.press.illinois.edu/25/3/svoboda.html. > > > > > Although we do not take a position on whether aerosol geoengineering > ought > > > to be deployed, we examine some potential obstacles to such > geoengineering > > > satisfying requirements of distributive, intergenerational, and > procedural > > > justice. Feedback welcome. > > > > > Best Wishes, > > > > > Toby Svoboda > > > Ph.D. Candidate > > > Department of Philosophy > > > The Pennsylvania State University > > > 232 Sparks Building > > > University Park, PA 16802 > > > tobysvob...@gmail.com > > -- > 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.
Re: [geo] Re: New Paper on Ethics and Geoengineering
Thank you all for the interesting and helpful feedback. Michael mentions a case (a methane tipping point) in which deployment of SAG might satisfy requirements of justice. Perhaps in certain scenarios, SAG would be (or would be part of) a just climate policy, or at least a policy that is less unjust than other policies available in those scenarios. Our paper is rather preliminary in the sense that it raises some ethical worries about SAG but does not take a position on whether it ought to be deployed. Perhaps, even with certain ethical imperfections, in some likely scenarios SAG would be the best option from a justice perspective. I don't know whether this would be the case. It seems that further work would be needed to get clear on that. As for unilateralism, our paper does not argue that there is a high probability of unilateral deployment but rather that such deployment would be unjust. As you know, there are a number of papers in the literature that discuss unilateral deployment. Josh's paper (which appeared after ours was in press) and Dan's comments raise some interesting points. Perhaps worries over unilateralism are overblown. That would be a welcome result from a procedural justice perspective, although non-unilateral deployment wouldn't necessarily be procedurally just (e.g., if some other countries, through no fault of their own, were still excluded from having a say in whether and how SAG gets deployed). Both Michael and Josh suggest that actual policies often violate the theories of procedural justice we consider in the paper. This may well be true, but that does not mean that those theories are false. What we actually do and what we ought to do are distinct--we can fail to live up to standards we should meet. Moreover, it seems that a policy could be more or less procedurally unjust, with the latter being ethically preferable to the former. For example, one could treat the Rawlsian principle as an ideal--even if it is rarely complied with perfectly, some decision procedures will come closer than others. Dan mentions a number of concerns, but I wouldn't characterize our paper as containing "objections" to SAG, because we don't advocate that it ought not to be deployed. In the sections on distributive and intergenerational justice, we point to risks of harm associated with SAG. We think these risks are ethically significant and should be taken into account. All things considered, it might turn out that these are risks that should be tolerated, but that remains to be shown in my view. Dan writes, "But on the whole, the suggested program of incremental research, followed possibly by limited testing, seem a sensible approach when we compare the risks of implementation against a world which is clearly warming in a dangerous way?" We don't deny this in the paper, as we focus on deployment rather than research. Dan also writes, "The idea that the question of intergenerational justice might be one where we're *disadvantaging* future generations seems likewise odd. After all, the whole reason this is being proposed is in large part because of concerns about the well being of future generations." But even if our intentions are good (e.g., the well-being of future persons), we can still cause substantial harm to persons. Again, perhaps we ought to deploy SAG, e.g. because the harm to future generations would be less if we do than if we do not. But if so, it is my view that an argument for that would need to be made in detail. Many Thanks, Toby -- 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.
Re: [geo] Re: New Paper on Ethics and Geoengineering
Just a quick clarification. Regarding our "discontinuation argument," Dan writes, "Clearly the whole argument... revolves around the notion that discontinuation might be substantially more harmful than not ever having done anything. This single assumption seems highly uncertain..." I want to stress that we do not make this assumption in the paper. As we write, "We have argued that SAG has the potential to violate the requirements of justice. This does not necessarily imply that some other climate change policy (e.g., adaptation) ought to be adopted in favor of SAG. It might be the case that all climate change policies currently up for debate are ethically problematic in various ways. Further, it might be the case that we ought to implement one of these ethically unacceptable policies as the least of several evils, and this least evil policy might turn out to be SAG..." It may well be the case that SAG, despite its risks of harm, would be the least harmful policy in certain scenarios. We have not denied that possibility. Best, Toby On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Dan Whaley wrote: > On the discontinuation argument: > > "we contend that intergenerational justice requires the present > generation to ensure that future generations have access to food, > water, shelter, and > education. If SAG is implemented and then discontinued, future > generations’ access to > these benefits could be compromised. Thus, any generation that > implements SAG accepts > the risk that it might later be discontinued, but the subjects of this > risk are the future > generations who would suffer the harmful effects if SAG should be > discontinued > abruptly" > > Clearly the whole argument (including the appropriateness of the > dialysis analogy) revolves around the notion that discontinuation > might be substantially more harmful than not ever having done > anything. > > This single assumption seems highly uncertain (I do see the three > references that are provided, Alley, 2002; Lempert et al., 1994; > Nordhaus, 1994 but am unqualified myself to appraise whether they're > the appropriate ones or make the sufficient case). Others here are > much more qualified to weigh in. What is the extent to which this > notion has been explored by the community? > > Dan > > > > > On Aug 18, 12:38 am, Toby Svoboda wrote: > > Thank you all for the interesting and helpful feedback. > > > > Michael mentions a case (a methane tipping point) in which deployment of > SAG > > might satisfy requirements of justice. Perhaps in certain scenarios, SAG > > would be (or would be part of) a just climate policy, or at least a > policy > > that is less unjust than other policies available in those scenarios. Our > > paper is rather preliminary in the sense that it raises some ethical > worries > > about SAG but does not take a position on whether it ought to be > deployed. > > Perhaps, even with certain ethical imperfections, in some likely > scenarios > > SAG would be the best option from a justice perspective. I don't know > > whether this would be the case. It seems that further work would be > needed > > to get clear on that. > > > > As for unilateralism, our paper does not argue that there is a high > > probability of unilateral deployment but rather that such deployment > would > > be unjust. As you know, there are a number of papers in the literature > that > > discuss unilateral deployment. Josh's paper (which appeared after ours > was > > in press) and Dan's comments raise some interesting points. Perhaps > worries > > over unilateralism are overblown. That would be a welcome result from a > > procedural justice perspective, although non-unilateral deployment > wouldn't > > necessarily be procedurally just (e.g., if some other countries, through > no > > fault of their own, were still excluded from having a say in whether and > how > > SAG gets deployed). > > > > Both Michael and Josh suggest that actual policies often violate the > > theories of procedural justice we consider in the paper. This may well be > > true, but that does not mean that those theories are false. What we > actually > > do and what we ought to do are distinct--we can fail to live up to > standards > > we should meet. Moreover, it seems that a policy could be more or less > > procedurally unjust, with the latter being ethically preferable to the > > former. For example, one could treat the Rawlsian principle as an > > ideal--even if it is rarely complied with perfectly, some decision > > procedures will come closer than others. > > > > Dan mentions a number
Re: [geo] Re: New Paper on Ethics and Geoengineering
Hi Michael, Thanks for your feedback. I think that decisions about whether or not aerosol geoengineering *ought *to be deployed in some situation would depend on a host of issues that would need to be examined in detail, such as whether there is an impending climate emergency, what the specific details of the deployment proposal are, how that proposal compares to other available strategies, etc. This would be important to do as more concrete proposals emerge. So I believe we are in agreement when you note that you would "like to see the debate continued with focus upon *specific* emerging science and engineering developments." However, at this early stage of geoengineering research (and even earlier stage of research on geoengineering ethics), I'm not sure that would have been the most useful focus for our paper. Moreover, I do think that broader ethical considerations can be helpful in their own right. For one thing, they might guide the crafting of specific proposals that are sensitive to various ethical issues. For example, one might argue that PSAI-S is ethically preferable to other available options in a situation in which some tipping point in the climate is imminent, perhaps because the outcome of PSAI-S would be less unjust than the outcomes of other options. I view our paper as sketching some potential ethical problems faced by aerosol geoengineering but also leaving the door open for concrete proposals that either avoid or substantially diminish these potential problems. But before one can avoid or diminish those problems within some specific proposal, one needs to be aware of what the potential problems are. Finally, I would stress again that, despite the risks of injustice, aerosol geoengineering might turn out to be the ethically preferable option in certain cases, depending on what the alternatives are. Josh, as for the acronym "SAG," no negative connotations were intended, but a different acronym would be fine with me as long as it refers to the same technique. Thanks, Toby On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Michael Hayes wrote: > Toby et al., > > D-5-W is a common intravenous (I.V.) fluid given to a trauma patient. It is > a 5% Dextrose (sugar) solution in water. This solution helps prevent the > body from converting stored body fat into needed energy (and thus preventing > a strong acid influx-and thus preventing a cascade of physiological > problems). Polar Stratospheric Aerosol Injection-Sulfide (PSAI-S) has > somewhat of an analogy to the use of D-5-W. In that, the use of such a > (simple) technique can prevent a cascade of global environmental problems. > Keeping the polar regions cold can prevent the need for > more...invasive...procedures. > > I point this out as a means to help clarify this debate. Geoengineering has > so quickly evolved, in both scientific and engineering understanding, that > the broad use of a term such as "SAG" is counterproductive for use in > detailed discussions. I go to this length of explanation, not as a means of > correction, but as a means to help sharpen the focus of this debate. > > Mike points out the reasonable logic of starting slow (and early) and > building up climate intervention means as conditions warrant. Others have > pointed out the potential use of different aerosols in relation to different > atmospheric circulation patterns to produce even seasonal effects. > > Your paper does not take a close look at the physical reality of just how > close we are to seeing a methane tipping point. You have, however recognized > that such a situation would rearrange the debate...thank you. I feel that we > must focus the debate on dealing with the worst case scenario before we have > the freedom to set out long term and somewhat "Idealized" standards. > Crawling into a wrecked and smoldering car to simply start an I.V. of D-5-W > on the bleeding driver is not good quality basic health care. But, it can > lead to just that.given time and lots of early, intelligent and > cooperative work. The core concept of "Geoengineering" is not "good quality > basic health care" for the planet, but simply a means and way to better care > for the planet until we can move beyond fossil fuels. > > Unfortunately, the concept of "Geoengineering" is so new that few people > truly understand the means, motives and even objectives of the science and > engineering. I personally see it as Geo Trauma Care (GTC). Yes, the fossil > fuel economy has traumatized this planet and I see the potential of PSAI-S > as potentially being the equivalent of an emergency I.V. procedure. However, > the long-term prognosis of our existence on this planet is predicated upon > the universal use of renewable energy, not on the use of climate > engineering. > > Your work (as well as Wil Burns) on raising the different ethical aspects > of the debate is helping us get there. Ideally, I would like to see the > debate continued with focus upon *specific* emerging science and > engineering dev
Re: [geo] Re: New Paper on Ethics and Geoengineering
Thanks for your comments, Michael, and apologies for the delayed response. I agree that it could be helpful to look more closely at the issue of a methane tipping point and to consider the ethics of various geoengineering techniques in the light of possible emergency scenarios. In particular, it would be helpful to examine how certain responses to emergency scenarios compare to one another ethically. Perhaps, given an imminent methane tipping point, some geoengineering technique would be less unjust and/or less harmful than other available options. But as you suggest, we would need to examine various details in order to find out whether this is the case. Looking more closely at the ESAS issue could be a way of doing this. Gregory points out that various ethical standards are available and reasonably asks how we are to choose among them to guide our actions. First, I would note that there are some deep theoretical affinities among certain theorists, especially between Kant, Rawls, and Dewey. Second, while there is no doubt some major theoretical differences among some sets of ethical standards, there is often also a fair degree of convergence on practical issues as well. We tried to show an example of this in our paper by arguing that various theories of justice (those of Rawls, Dworkin, Sen, etc.), despite their significant theoretical divergences, converge in raising problems for SAG. Another example might be informed consent in medical ethics. While utilitarians and Kantians, for example, might tell different theoretical stories about *why *informed consent is ethically appropriate, most of us can agree that it *is *ethically appropriate. So it seems to me that we don't always need to settle theoretical controversies in order to do work on some issues in practical ethics, since different theories often yield similar practical results. There is much more to say about this, of course, but I think that gives an indication of how ethical considerations of geoengineering can avoid being pointless. Best Wishes, Toby Svoboda On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Michael Hayes wrote: > Hello Dr. Benford et al., > > The term is cumbersome but is technically precise. I believe that an effort > to move from discussing the general means of climate engineering to the > specific means is important as it may help in nailing down what is actually > possible and thus probable. The cost factor can be viewed through a number > of different perspectives depending upon what type of "value" is to be > expected for a given "objective". The Mulberry Harbour was the least cost > effective long term harbor ever built. Yet, it was cheap for what it did and > was priceless during it's short life. > > If, for example, tropo injection can possibly prevent the need for a more > robust means (strato injection) and the accompanying complications of > directly effecting non polar regions (both physically and politically) can > be limited, the upfront added expense of tropo injection would seem like a > good value relative to the objective. The main objective being actually > achieving the earliest steps in preventing an imminent wide area arctic GHSZ > breaching and doing so with the widest possible level of cooperation. > > The short wave aerosol effectiveness can be viewed as a positive aspect on > a number of levels relative to an initial real world emergency > effort. Simply limiting the initial down range extent of the aerosol can > quickly provide controlled areas of study and data collection. This, as we > know, would need to cover everything from the sea floor biota to the Ozone > Layer. And, on a very practical note, we would only have a few months to > collect the ocean centric data due to the onset of the arctic winter. > Adjusting the technical aspects for the best possible effect could then > be incorporated in short order. The initial time aspect is not long term but > an emergency response which could then be adjusted for long term (more > efficient) means. > > With all that said and for the purpose of this exploration of ethics, > Stratospheric Injection can very well be adopted as the prime technical > focus. However, which of the 2 are the most likely to be actually allowed to > initially go forward...even in a broadly accepted emergency? I would bet on > tropo over strato. I just believe that there is a need to work through the > ethical considerations of a "*focused * scientific/technical *emergency > protocol*". If that can be done for tropo, a road map for a similar > eithical workup for the more complicated issue of strato injection would be > in hand. > > If a meaningful debate can be developed, based upon the assumption that a > "widely accepted imminate global climate emergency" is at hand, it may help > make clear and important dis
Re: [geo] Re: New Paper on Ethics and Geoengineering
Hi Michael, I don't believe it is necessary to secure the *consent *of everyone in order for a policy to be ethically permissible. However, given that a geoengineering policy could substantially impact various persons, it would seem unfair to deny such persons an opportunity to have some input. This is not to say that everyone will agree. Of course, as you note, a public could make bad decisions, but so could individuals or interested groups. I agree that instituting "unattainable ethical standards to block, and or confuse, the acceptance of the reality that we face, can in of itself, be viewed as unethical," but I do not believe that the considerations of justice I have suggested are unattainable standards. Best, Toby Svoboda On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Michael Hayes wrote: > Hi Toby et al., > > I think I have found an historical analogy concerning the issue of consent. > I would rate this analogy a 6 on a scale of 10 for a number of reasons yet > it is the only historical analogy which seems to even come close to a > "universal consent" which I can find. > > The Peace Ballot of 1935 ended up weighing enough in policy decisions that > the effect ended up in the death of 10s of millions of people within 10 > years. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Ballot > > I do believe this is a good example of how destructive it is to have > important and highly complicated issues being decided by a populace which, > due to a lack of expert knowledge, is simply expressing an *emotion.* The > peace ballot was credited by Churchill and others as the main reason why > Hitler was allowed to rearm Germany. > > The Kellogg-Briand Pact does not speak to the universal consent issue yet > it does point out just how the issue of universal ethics can be codified on > one hand and completely ignored in the other hand. Also, a debate on the > consent issue would be well served if we look at how the "consent" is > solicited and codified. The Peace Ballot was clearly heavily weighed in > favor of a particular political party. > > You make references to a number of philosophers yet I do not believe the > ethical structures of non-western societies has been addressed. The > Buddhist philosophy on ethics is as substantial (and problematic) as that > which is proposed by Kant, Rawls and Dewey.if you are a committed > Buddhist. This argument can be expanded to other belief systems such as > Sufi, Native Americans etc. I am still working my way through the works of > Dworkin and Sen and I would like to reserve further comment after that study > is done. > > Spencer believed in the ultimate perfection of humanity on the basis of > advanced science. And, past historical efforts, such as the Peace Ballot and > Kellogg-Briand Pact, have tried to address issues of both universal consent > and codification in what does seem like an effort to effect a Spence like > perfection of humanity. However, history does show us just how unfruitful > such expectations were and even just how distructive they quickly became. > The vast majority of humanity will always be in contention. Universal > ethics may continue to evolve at the philosophical level, however I can not > see such work changing the deep contentious nature of man. > > Yet, it is important to deal with the ultimate question of survival of most > life on this planet. There is no seeable end to the polutioning of the > atmosphere and thus Climate Engineering will be used or we will > perish. Dealing with that reality is ethical on many levels. Raising > unatainable ethical standards to block, and or confuse, the acceptance of > the reality that we face, can in of itself, be viewed as unethical. > > Thanks, > > Michael > > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Toby Svoboda wrote: > >> Thanks for your comments, Michael, and apologies for the delayed response. >> I agree that it could be helpful to look more closely at the issue of a >> methane tipping point and to consider the ethics of various geoengineering >> techniques in the light of possible emergency scenarios. In particular, it >> would be helpful to examine how certain responses to emergency scenarios >> compare to one another ethically. Perhaps, given an imminent methane tipping >> point, some geoengineering technique would be less unjust and/or less >> harmful than other available options. But as you suggest, we would need to >> examine various details in order to find out whether this is the case. >> Looking more closely at the ESAS issue could be a way of doing this. >> >> Gregory points out that various ethical standards are available and >> reasonably asks how we are to choose among them to guide our actions. First, &
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 - Wil
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 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 > *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.
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 - Wil
Robert, I don't make an "argument that aerosol geoengineering is unnecessary." The paper I sent, which includes a section calling for further geoengineering research, is sympathetic to the possibility that geoengineering may be ethically permissible (or even obligatory) in emergency scenarios. Now, you seem to think we are in (or close to) such a scenario at present. That seems arguable, given all the uncertainties involved. But supposing you are right, then the ethical principle defended in the paper would kick in at present rather than in the future. 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. As a conditional claim, that is not very controversial. Best, Toby On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Robert Tulip wrote: > Toby, > > Regarding your argument that aerosol geoengineering is unnecessary, going > back to my original points, your view ignores the apparent facts that > climate change is only going to accelerate in severity, and that political > drivers make emission reduction impossible and far too slow. > > Increasing emissions means steadily worsening climate instability. The > melting Arctic is the classic canary in the coalmine - the sign of a > dangerous emergency. The unprecedented September 2012 ice extent of 3.3 > million square kilometers was less than half the mean scientific prediction > of 7 million square kilometers. Unknown feedback loops are already > operating. Without ice, the feedback loops for superstorms from an > ice-free Arctic will only grow worse. > > We need to start applying emergency measures now to stop the arctic > melting through solar radiation management, so that as the weather gets > worse we have systems in place to respond. By the precautionary principle, > field testing a range of measures now will mean response systems are > established before things get really bad, which is likely to be quite > suddenly. Deploying aerosol geoengineering now is ethically far better, in > terms of net harm and safeguarding the planetary future, than your counsel > of waiting for something to turn up like a frog in a pot. > > We could consider a few more parables. Climate change is like a person > bleeding to death from a limb chopped off by accident, and aerosol > geoengineering is like an emergency tourniquet. Greenhouse gas emissions > are like adding cyanide to the municipal water supply, and increasing the > dose when harmful health effects are recorded. Burning coal is like > smoking cigarettes, a seductive addiction that is highly deadly. > > Ethicists have a moral responsibiilty to guide the political process to > provide resources for required investments. The idea that practical > response to the global climate emergency is not urgent is morally > repugnant.. > > Robert Tulip > >*From:* Toby Svoboda > *To:* Robert Tulip > *Cc:* geoengineering > *Sent:* Monday, 19 November 2012 6:10 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, > > 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 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 arter
Re: [geo] Response to Svoboda and Irvine, J Reynolds
Hi All, Interesting discussion. First, regarding intention, much of what has been said above is helpful, and I would second Jesse's recommendation of David Morrow's paper <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21550085.2014.926056#.U-0WuWP6eyM> on doing/allowing and double effect (full disclosure: David and I are coauthors on a separate project.) I appreciate Jesse's commentary on Peter's and my paper (thanks!), and I wanted to address some of the points he raises. Jesse suggests that the main problem in our paper is that we treat "the shortcomings of SRM and of compensation for its potential negative secondary effects as if they were sui generis." But to clarify, it is not our view that SRM compensation is a sui generis problem, nor do we state that it is in our paper. It may well be true that the ethical challenges faced by SRM compensation are already faced in other domains, such as socially organized responses to complex problems, other instances of compensation provision, and climate change (to take Jesse's examples). Our claim was that providing compensation for SRM-related harm faces some difficult challenges. If Jesse is right, many or all of these same challenges arise in other domains, but he does not specify what is supposed to follow from this. Our argument is not undermined by the fact (if it is one) that there are parallels among these various domains, for the challenges to SRM compensation remain challenges even if they are not unique to SRM. Jesse writes that "SRM might be especially complex, in large part of its global nature, but that does not make it entirely novel." We can agree with this, because we did not claim that SRM is entirely novel. Nonetheless, since the issue of SRM compensation is particularly complex, it is worth investigating whether we can disentangle the many issues involved and reduce uncertainty regarding them. Jesse also suggests that we "stack the deck against SRM," but I think this is due to a misunderstanding of what our paper aims to do. Although we noted throughout the paper that SRM could have many benefits, we did not emphasize these potential benefits because the issue under investigation was compensation provision for harms due to SRM. Of course, this focus would tend to emphasize potential harms, since our primary question was how such harms should be remunerated. Given that question, it would be odd to emphasize the potential benefits of SRM, although we certainly acknowledge them. It is important to note that Peter and I were not addressing whether some form of SRM should be deployed in the future. As we wrote, "We conclude that establishing a just SRM compensation system faces severe difficulties. This does not necessarily imply that SRM ought never to be deployed, as there might be satisfactory ways to resolve these difficulties. Furthermore, even if these difficulties are not fully surmounted, it does not necessarily follow that SRM deployment would be impermissible." We certainly don't think the challenges of SRM compensation should create "paralysis among policy makers," nor that the ethical uncertainty involved provides a decisive reason against deployment, but we do think these challenges are worth considering. In some future scenario, it might be permissible to deploy some form of SRM (as I have argued in other published work--see here <http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/ethics_and_the_environment/v017/17.2.svoboda.html>), but even then we should try to compensate for harm if we can. Thanks, Toby Svoboda On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Christopher Preston < christopherpreston1...@gmail.com> wrote: > For those who will be there, there is a session on this issue of > intentional vs. known/foreseen at CE 14 next week: > > INTENTIONAL & UNINTENTIONAL INTERFERENCES IN THE CLIMATE SYSTEM > Conveners: > Harald Stelzer (IASS-Potsdam) > <http://www.iass-potsdam.de/people/pd-dr-harald-stelzer> > Fabian Schuppert (Queen's University Belfast) > <http://www.qub.ac.uk/research-centres/InstituteforCollaborativeResearchintheHumanities/StaffProfiles/DrFabianSchuppert/> > Speakers: > David R. Morrow (University of Alabama at Birmingham) > <http://www.davidmorrow.net/> > Christopher Preston (University of Montana) > <http://www.humansandnature.org/christopher-preston-scholar-8.php> > Clare Heyward (Warwick University) > <http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/people/heyward/> > Date: > Wednesday, 20. August 2014 - 9:00 to 10:30 > Location: > Pine > > > > On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 7:29:27 AM UTC-6, Josh Horton wrote: >> >> Jesse, thanks for posting the Svoboda and Irvine article as well as all >> four commentaries (including mine!). >> >> The question of intent m
Re: [geo] Response to Svoboda and Irvine, J Reynolds
Hi Ron, I agree that CDR warrants attention from ethicists (and others). For those attending the Berlin Climate Engineering Conference this week, there is a session on the ethics of CDR that might be of interest: http://www.ce-conference.org/ethics-carbon-dioxide-removal. Best, Toby The Ethics of Carbon Dioxide Removal Date: Thursday, 21. August 2014 - 11:00 to 12:30 Location: Copenhagen *Speakers* - *"Geoengineering and Non-Ideal Theories of Justice"* by David Morrow (University of Alabama at Birmingham) and Toby Svoboda (Fairfield University) - *"An Overview of CDR Techniques - Adverse Impacts and Ethical Concerns"* by Haomiao Du (University of Amsterdam) - *"Public Participation and Stakeholder Inclusion for Geoengineering: What Do We Know from CDM A/R?"* by Erik Thorstensen (Oslo and Akershus University College) - *"Would the Development of a Safe, Robust and Scalable Technique to Sequester Carbon Dioxide from the Air Create an Obligation to 'Clean up the Mess'?" *by Tim Kruger (University of Oxford) *Session Description* Most of the current literature on ethical aspects of climate engineering (CE) has concentrated on solar radiation management. CDR has not gained wide addition up to now, even though it also seems to raise major normative challenges. In the session we will outline major issues regarding the ethics of CDR, summarize the main properties that distinguish CDR form SRM from a normative perspective, take a look at some case studies on different CDR techniques and put them in the context of mitigation and adaptation efforts. On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Ronal W. Larson wrote: > Dr. Svoboda, cc list and others in this dialog: > > 1. I thank you and the others writing about a portion of the ethics of > Geoengieering. Your work is valuable. > > 2. But I am concerned that there has been only discussion of a portion of > Geoengineering - only about SRM. Not just in the current exchange, but in > virtually every geoengineering/ethics article I have read. This is true > for most of the papers mentioned in this thread. > > 3. One exception: Dr. Wong briefly mentions CDR and does a good job of > using the term "Geoengineering" to mean both SRM and CDR. His emphasis on > post implementation certainly can apply to CDR - so I am applauding his > small contribution. However, I disagree strongly with the word "only" in > this sentence quoting Vaughan and Lenton at about his p 2.4/6 (my emphasis > added): > > "*For example, Naomi E. Vaughan and Timothy M. Lenton note that the > 'effect [of any Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques] will decay over > time [ . . . ], and it will also decay if carbon storage is not permanent. > In the long-term, the only way to return atmospheric CO2 to pre-industrial > levels is to permanently store [ . . . ] an equivalent amount of CO2 to the > total emitted to the atmosphere' (Vaughan & Lenton, 2011, p. 750).* > > That is, I believe there is general agreement that > afforestation/reforestation can be a valuable CDR approach, even though it > is certainly not permanent. I claim the same about biochar, with a major > portion likely to last for millennia. My concern might extend to Dr. > Wong, but certainly to Drs. Vaughan and Lenton. Permanence should never > be a requirement for any form of either SRM or CDR. > So this is to urge list members to read the Wong paper for the > (limited) way that CDR stays in his discussion. > 4. Dr. Svoboda yesterday directed our attention in his last sentence > to a 2012 (behind pay-wall) article, whose abstract reads (emphasis added): > > *As a strategy for responding to climate change, aerosol geoengineering > (AG) carries various risks, thus raising ethical concerns regarding its > potential deployment. I examine three ethical arguments that AG ought not > to be deployed, given that it (1) risks harming persons, (2) would harm > persons, and (3) would be more harmful to persons than some other available > strategy. I show that these arguments are not successful. Instead, I defend > a fourth argument: in scenarios in which all available climate change > strategies would result in net harm, we ought to adopt the strategy that > would result in the least net harm. Barring substantial cuts in greenhouse > gas emissions, we can reasonably expect future scenarios in which all > available strategies would result in net harm. In such cases, there is good > reason to suspect that AG would result in less net harm than emissions > mitigation, adaptation, or other geoengineering strategies.* > with this key words in the middle (emphasis added): > *"scenarios ... all ... strategies ...net harm"* >
