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
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. ATT 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 ATT 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
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
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 tobysvob...@gmail.com To: Robert Tulip rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com 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 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
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
Dear Mike: Well said. Bill Fulkerson On 11/20/12 11:09 AM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: Exactly—very well said. Mike MacCracken On 11/20/12 10:47 AM, Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com wrote: I think Jamais is on the right track. I don't think it's helpful for supporters of GE research to view ethics as inapplicable to research, or as offering nothing new, or as essentially hostile to GE, or in some other way dismissing it. Any robust research program (let alone deployment) is going to meet with public concerns, anxieties, and opposition, and such criticism can't simply be steamrolled out of existence, nor should it be. The public debate will invariably be influenced by the arguments of ethicists and moral philosophers, though less so than most ethicists would like. I am personally skeptical of many of the moral claims that have been made to justify opposition to geoengineering research, but it is counterproductive or worse to ignore them. A wiser and more effective strategy would be to engage with these perspectives, without necessarily agreeing with them. If nothing else, this would demonstrate good faith and a willingness to listen, and enhance the political sophistication of research advocates. Josh On Monday, November 19, 2012 2:51:00 PM UTC-5, Jamais Cascio 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 javascript: wrote: Well, look, not to press, but since this seems to get under your skin, I might as well. ATT 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 ATT 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
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 rtulip2...@yahoo.com.auwrote: 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 tobysvob...@gmail.com *To:* Robert Tulip rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au *Cc:* geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com *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 rtulip2...@yahoo.com.auwrote: 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
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
Toby Svoboda You don't get it. Ethicist are not prevented from commenti ng on geoengineering options so long as they do not int erfere with the work being funded, underway or contemplated. No one here is saying that. When it comes to implemen tation no one is saying ethic ist should not comment. Just stay out of the sand box until the research is completed all the parameters are known, and stop interfe ring. - Original Message - From: Toby Svoboda tobysvob...@gmail.com To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 2:01:57 PM 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, On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Doug MacMartin macma...@cds.caltech.edu wrote: Benjamin, was this post related to Ken’s? I don’t see the connection, but rather a reactionary and unsubstantiated insinuation that somehow “scientists” believe that “ethicists” are a problem for geoengineering. Ken tried to clarify what seems to be an ill-defined term regarding playing God. A few days ago, Ken asked a question, and rather than having the question answered, he was criticized simply for asking it (and, it seems from the subsequent discussion, that there was no disagreement on the basic point of his question anyway). doug From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto: geoengineering@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Benjamin Hale Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:25 AM To: kcalde...@gmail.com ; 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 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
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
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 -- 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, 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.auwrote: 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.
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
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
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
Hi All About the problem mentioned by Robert that critics of geo-engineering say that it will reduce efforts at CO2 reduction. I refer people to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWparachutes.htm In World War 1 many Royal Flying Corps pilots were killed because they were not allowed to use parachutes even though they were used by France, Germany and the Americans. The reason was that it 'might reduce their fighting spirit'. I would consider reducing my effort on geo-engineering when sufficiently large reductions in CO2 emissions are reported. Has anyone heard of any? Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs On 17/11/2012 05:12, Robert Tulip 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
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
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 http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy and Environmental Studies http://envs.colorado.edu/ University of Colorado, Boulder Tel: 303 735-3624; Fax: 303 735-1576 http://www.practicalreason.com http://www.practicalreason.com/ http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com/ Ethics, Policy http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cepe 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. C 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
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
Benjamin, was this post related to Ken's? I don't see the connection, but rather a reactionary and unsubstantiated insinuation that somehow scientists believe that ethicists are a problem for geoengineering. Ken tried to clarify what seems to be an ill-defined term regarding playing God. A few days ago, Ken asked a question, and rather than having the question answered, he was criticized simply for asking it (and, it seems from the subsequent discussion, that there was no disagreement on the basic point of his question anyway). doug From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Benjamin Hale Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:25 AM To: kcalde...@gmail.com; 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 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 http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy and Environmental Studies http://envs.colorado.edu/ University of Colorado, Boulder Tel: 303 735-3624; Fax: 303 735-1576 http://www.practicalreason.com http://www.practicalreason.com/ http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com/ Ethics, Policy http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cepe 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. C 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
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
And I cant help noticing how much research money seems to be available for researching the ethics and other social aspects of geoengineering while there is none for researching the technical side. john gorman - Original Message - From: Gregory Benford xbenf...@gmail.com To: gh...@sbcglobal.net Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 6:53 PM 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 idea that ethical merit can be diagnosed before we know much about how it works, and how well, is...useless. I find it curious that the ethicists want to jump on a subject when it's still barely begun. Reminds me of a decade ago for SRM, about which we still know little, because we don;t do experiments. Gregory Benford On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:06 AM, RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The wide range of geoengineering technologies currently being discussed makes it prudent that each technique should be evaluated individually for its ethical merit. Amen. - Greg From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, November 10, 2012 4:34:02 PM 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.
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
What an outrage! Should engineers apply philosop hical theory to determine what they study? I n any case politicians and related will decide what is implemented, not the engineers. Most politicians are unimpressed by ethics. Tell the e thicists to stuff it; but in any case leave geoengineering alone and focus on the decision makers. - Original Message - From: Dave Hawkins dhawk...@nrdc.org To: kcalde...@gmail.com, Stephen Gardiner smg...@u.washington.edu Cc: Benjamin Hale bh...@colorado.edu, xbenf...@gmail.com, gh...@sbcglobal.net, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com, ise...@listserv.tamu.edu, Debra Satz ds...@stanford.edu, Paul R. Ehrlich p...@stanford.edu, Mike Wallace wall...@atmos.washington.edu, Henry Shue henry.s...@politics.ox.ac.uk, Dale Jamieson dale.jamie...@nyu.edu Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:39:22 PM 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 Ken, Your clarification of what you are saying leaves some questions unanswered. You said you don’t see why ethicists are in interested in the topic of geoengineering. I believe the answer is they are interested because they are not comfortable that the geoengineers will do a competent job of applying the teachings of philosophical theory to the pursuit of geoengineering concepts. By the way, I chuckled at your applying the adage “nothing new under the sun” to the topic of solar radiation management. David From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 4:45 PM To: Stephen Gardiner Cc: Benjamin Hale; xbenf...@gmail.com; gh...@sbcglobal.net; geoengineering; ise...@listserv.tamu.edu; Debra Satz; Paul R. Ehrlich; Mike Wallace; Henry Shue; Dale Jamieson 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 Stephen, I think you misunderstand my point. To think quantitatively about geoengineering, we need arithmetic but geoengineering adds nothing to the study of arithmetic. Geoengineering is therefore not a fitting field of study for arithmeticians, but it may make sense for geoengineers to speak with arithmeticians when confronted with thorny arithmetic problems. To think ethically about geoengineering, we need to rely on the progress philosophers have made in the study of ethics but I simply do not see how geoengineering adds anything to the study of ethical theory. There is nothing logically new about this problem. It may differ in magnitude and scale from previous ethical dilemmas, but there is nothing that is qualitatively new from an ethical dimension. In other words, I am not arguing that geoengineering does not need philosophy. I am arguing that philosophers do not need geoengineering, in the same way that arithmeticians do not need geoengineering. If you think that geoengineering poses any fundamentally new philosophic problems, I would like to hear what they are. Best, Ken ___ 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 Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Stephen Gardiner smg...@u.washington.edu wrote: Dear Ken, I hereby challenge you (in the friendliest way) to a public debate on the ethics of geoengineering, and in particular your thesis about the irrelevance of philosophy. I'd be glad to host it up here at the University of Washington. With all due respect, we had an exchange on this list back in April, and I don't think you've addressed that yet. I find your views strange. It would be good to have this out, to see what the central issues between us are and whether they make any difference for geoengineering policy. It might also be fun. Best wishes, Steve Stephen M. Gardiner Professor of Philosophy Ben Rabinowitz Endowed Professor of the Human Dimensions of the Environment Department of Philosophy Box 353350 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 USA (206) 221-6459 (telephone) (206) 685 8740 (fax) http://depts.washington.edu/philweb/faculty/gardiner.html On Nov 11, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote: So what is new under the sun? Don't these ethical
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
I'm relatively new to ethics of geoengineering, but not too new to ethics and technology (and science and technology studies). And, it's not too controversial in both fields to assume the position that technology does *change* ethically relevant parameters - at least, by opening up new possibilities that is not available before (cf. Designer Climate in Preston's article). In this respect, it's not quite enough to 'apply' ethics or ethical theories in isolation of the knowledge about the technology we are normatively assessing. I'm not going to say this way of doing ethics (of technology) is uncontroversial, but it's one way to show ethics could/should learn something from geoengineering? Pak dr. Pak-Hang Wong | web: wongpakhang.com | tel: +44 (0)1865 288787 | twitter: phgeel http://twitter.com/phgeel/ Research Fellow on Climate Geoengineering Governance ( geoengineering-governance-research.org/)Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (InSIS) Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics University of Oxford On Monday, 12 November 2012 01:23:56 UTC, Ken Caldeira wrote: I quote from my earlier missive: *To think ethically about geoengineering, we need to rely on the progress philosophers have made in the study of ethics but I simply do not see how geoengineering adds anything to the study of ethical theory. * Judging from the responses, my assertion seems correct. If I read Benjamin correctly, there is nothing in geoengineering for philosophical theory, and the interest is in the realm of applied philosophy: *How can the body of theory developed by philosophers be applied in these particular cases?* Again, I think this is similar to the case with, say, statistics: *Statisticians are needed to help apply statistical theory to geoengineering-relevant climate model simulations, but these particular simulations do not pose new problems for theoretical development of statistics.* If I asked whether geoengineering poses new fundamental problems in statistical theory, I don't think the statisticians are likely to respond by asserting that I have little to add to discussions or that I am thinking narrowly. They would answer the question and not resort to *ad hominem* remarks. Perhaps this represents a cultural difference between philosophers and statisticians, but the statisticians would tell me that I cannot base such conclusions on such a small sample size. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu javascript: http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira *Our YouTube videos* The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the planet?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI Geophysical Limits to Global Wind Powerhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U7PXjUG-Yk More videos http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Benjamin Hale bh...@colorado.edujavascript: wrote: Ken, no offense, but you’re thinking about this very narrowly and very naively. It’s probably true that geoengineering doesn’t pose many new metaethical questions, but ethics isn’t limited to metaethics in much the same way that mathematics isn’t limited to pure math. There are applied mathematical questions associated with geoengineering, just as much as there are applied ethical questions associated with geoengineering. ** ** So to start, try the question: “Ought we to geoengineer?” That’s a fairly general question, but there are lots of little questions wrapped up in it. Also, many of those little questions don’t take the same form as “ought I to plow my fields?” or “ought I to stick a fork in my dog?” ** ** If you don’t see the vast range of ethical questions associated with geoengineering, we have a lot more to worry about than I’ve otherwise been assuming. ** ** Benjamin Hale Assistant Professor/Graduate Director (ENVS) Philosophy http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy and Environmental Studieshttp://envs.colorado.edu/ ** ** University of Colorado, Boulder Tel: 303 735-3624; Fax: 303 735-1576 http://www.practicalreason.com http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com *Ethics, Policy Environment http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cepe* ** ** ** ** ** ** *From:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto: geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *Ken Caldeira *Sent:* Sunday, November 11, 2012 5:04 PM *To:* nrbo...@gmail.com javascript: *Cc:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: *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 ** ** Niad, ** ** I am still waiting
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
Pak: Geoengineers develop options. If they move into implementation then they assume a different role where ethics can play a part . However, ethics has nothing to say about Geoengineering RD other than ' do no harm' . -gene - Original Message - From: Pak-Hang Wong pak...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: Benjamin Hale bh...@colorado.edu, nrbon...@gmail.com, kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 5:43:04 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 I'm relatively new to ethics of geoengineering, but not too new to ethics and technology (and science and technology studies). And, it's not too controversial in both fields to assume the position that technology does change ethically relevant parameters - at least, by opening up new possibilities that is not available before (cf. Designer Climate in Preston's article). In this respect, it's not quite enough to 'apply' ethics or ethical theories in isolation of the knowledge about the technology we are normatively assessing. I'm not going to say this way of doing ethics (of technology) is uncontroversial, but it's one way to show ethics could/should learn something from geoengineering? Pak dr. Pak-Hang Wong | web: wongpakhang.com | tel: +44 (0)1865 288787 | twitter: phgeel Research Fellow on Climate Geoengineering Governance ( geoengineering-governance-research.org/ )Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (InSIS) Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics University of Oxford On Monday, 12 November 2012 01:23:56 UTC, Ken Caldeira wrote: I quote from my earlier missive: To think ethically about geoengineering, we need to rely on the progress philosophers have made in the study of ethics but I simply do not see how geoengineering adds anything to the study of ethical theory. Judging from the responses, my assertion seems correct. If I read Benjamin correctly, there is nothing in geoengineering for philosophical theory, and the interest is in the realm of applied philosophy: How can the body of theory developed by philosophers be applied in these particular cases? Again, I think this is similar to the case with, say, statistics: Statisticians are needed to help apply statistical theory to geoengineering-relevant climate model simulations, but these particular simulations do not pose new problems for theoretical development of statistics. If I asked whether geoengineering poses new fundamental problems in statistical theory, I don't think the statisticians are likely to respond by asserting that I have little to add to discussions or that I am thinking narrowly. They would answer the question and not resort to ad hominem remarks. Perhaps this represents a cultural difference between philosophers and statisticians, but the statisticians would tell me that I cannot base such conclusions on such a small sample size. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@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 Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Benjamin Hale bh...@colorado.edu wrote: blockquote Ken, no offense, but you’re thinking about this very narrowly and very naively. It’s probably true that geoengineering doesn’t pose many new metaethical questions, but ethics isn’t limited to metaethics in much the same way that mathematics isn’t limited to pure math. There are applied mathematical questions associated with geoengineering, just as much as there are applied ethical questions associated with geoengineering. So to start, try the question: “Ought we to geoengineer?” That’s a fairly general question, but there are lots of little questions wrapped up in it. Also, many of those little questions don’t take the same form as “ought I to plow my fields?” or “ought I to stick a fork in my dog?” If you don’t see the vast range of ethical questions associated with geoengineering, we have a lot more to worry about than I’ve otherwise been assuming. 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: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto: geoengi...@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 5:04 PM To: nrbo...@gmail.com Cc:
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
Ken, In philosophical discussions, the privilege of asking questions is always contingent on a fundamental openness. This means that questions as well as questioners are willing to undergo a transformation as the discussion proceeds. I am not sure if you are open to the possibility of undergoing such a transformation, which is why I am not very motivated to answer your question. I can only invite you to read my response to you earlier this year (pasted below). Cheers, Ninad On Apr 7, 2012, at 9:20 PM, Ninad Bondre wrote: Ken, I am not sure why the question of anything new arose, but I agree with what Nathan states in the first paragraph of his earlier email. Some additional thoughts here as my view of philosophy differs from yours. Novelty doesn't play the same role in philosophical inquiry as it might in scientific research. The fundamental questions of (Western) philosophy have remained essentially the same; yet this has in no way led to the demise or even stagnation of philosophy as an academic discipline. This is because Applying old philosophical insights to new empirical facts -- in a new social, political and historic context -- is bread and butter of philosophical inquiry. This is a process by which the old insights are themselves transformed, in tangible and intangible ways. Empirical facts are as important to philosophy as are other ways of knowing. Philosophy is neither solely an ascetic or contemplative pursuit nor one confined to academic ivory towers, but instead one that each of us engages in simply by virtue of being engaged with the world. New philosophical research is not an endless quest for new questions and its quality or relevance cannot be judged in this fashion. Coming to geoengineering, I think that elucidating the attendant ethical dilemmas and understanding how people choose to address those is most fertile ground for philosophical investigation in the academia. Best, Ninad On Monday, November 12, 2012 1:04:39 AM UTC+1, Ken Caldeira wrote: Niad, I am still waiting for you to tell me what new problems geoengineering poses for philosophy. When I asked this in the past, I never received a satisfying answer, and now you are criticizing me for asking again. Rather than criticizing me for asking a question, why not answer the question: *What new problem does geoengineering pose for philosophy?* Best, Ken On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Ninad Bondre nrbo...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Ken, During an email exchange on this topic in April, in which several of us offered diverse perspectives on philosophy, you said: It is clear to me that my conception of what constitutes 'philosophy' is different from both the popular conception and the conception of currently practicing academic philosophers. And later, Call me obtuse, but nothing in this discussion has caused me to reassess the view I started out with... Your recent emails suggest you have little new to contribute to this discussion. So before asking others to demonstrate the novelty of the ethical questions raised by geoengineering, it would be nice to have some fresh arguments from your end. Ninad On Sunday, November 11, 2012 10:46:02 PM UTC+1, Ken Caldeira wrote: Stephen, I think you misunderstand my point. To think quantitatively about geoengineering, we need arithmetic but geoengineering adds nothing to the study of arithmetic. Geoengineering is therefore not a fitting field of study for arithmeticians, but it may make sense for geoengineers to speak with arithmeticians when confronted with thorny arithmetic problems. To think ethically about geoengineering, we need to rely on the progress philosophers have made in the study of ethics but I simply do not see how geoengineering adds anything to the study of ethical theory. There is nothing logically new about this problem. It may differ in magnitude and scale from previous ethical dilemmas, but there is nothing that is qualitatively new from an ethical dimension. In other words, I am not arguing that geoengineering does not need philosophy. I am arguing that philosophers do not need geoengineering, in the same way that arithmeticians do not need geoengineering. If you think that geoengineering poses any fundamentally new philosophic problems, I would like to hear what they are. Best, Ken ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@**carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/**caldeiralabhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira *Our YouTube videos* The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the planet?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI Geophysical Limits to Global Wind Powerhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U7PXjUG-Yk More videos http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos On Sun, Nov
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
The wide range of geoengineering technologies currently being discussed makes it prudent that each technique should be evaluated individually for its ethical merit. Amen. - Greg From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, November 10, 2012 4:34:02 PM 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.
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
The idea that ethical merit can be diagnosed before we know much about how it works, and how well, is...useless. I find it curious that the ethicists want to jump on a subject when it's still barely begun. Reminds me of a decade ago for SRM, about which we still know little, because we don;t do experiments. Gregory Benford On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:06 AM, RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The wide range of geoengineering technologies currently being discussed makes it prudent that each technique should be evaluated individually for its ethical merit. Amen. - Greg From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, November 10, 2012 4:34:02 PM 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.
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
Maybe you guys should read a bit more before making such pronouncements, or at least consider a bit more deeply how vexing and multidimensional the geoengineering challenge really is. Where ethics goes, so too goes policy and politics. If you think there's nothing new under the sun there, you're speaking from a strange place indeed. 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 -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:04 PM To: xbenf...@gmail.com Cc: gh...@sbcglobal.net; geoengineering@googlegroups.com 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 I don't think that geoengineering brings up any ethical issue that have not been faced from time immemorial. Since the beginning of time people have made decisions that affect others without getting the consent of everyone ( or everything ) affected. How to get broader participation and how to make just decisions in the absence of universal participation are difficult practical problems but they are not new problems for ethical theorists. Geoengineering raises ethical issues but it doesn't raise any new ethical issues. So, I don't see why ethicists are interested in this topic. With regards to ethics, iIt seems to me that there is nothing new under the sun. Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu +1 650 704 7212 http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab Sent from a limited-typing keyboard On Nov 11, 2012, at 10:53, Gregory Benford xbenf...@gmail.com wrote: The idea that ethical merit can be diagnosed before we know much about how it works, and how well, is...useless. I find it curious that the ethicists want to jump on a subject when it's still barely begun. Reminds me of a decade ago for SRM, about which we still know little, because we don;t do experiments. Gregory Benford On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:06 AM, RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The wide range of geoengineering technologies currently being discussed makes it prudent that each technique should be evaluated individually for its ethical merit. Amen. - Greg From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, November 10, 2012 4:34:02 PM 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
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
So what is new under the sun? Don't these ethical problems have the same logical structure as those that have plagued humanity since its inception? On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Benjamin Hale bh...@colorado.edu wrote: Maybe you guys should read a bit more before making such pronouncements, or at least consider a bit more deeply how vexing and multidimensional the geoengineering challenge really is. Where ethics goes, so too goes policy and politics. If you think there's nothing new under the sun there, you're speaking from a strange place indeed. 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 -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:04 PM To: xbenf...@gmail.com Cc: gh...@sbcglobal.net; geoengineering@googlegroups.com 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 I don't think that geoengineering brings up any ethical issue that have not been faced from time immemorial. Since the beginning of time people have made decisions that affect others without getting the consent of everyone ( or everything ) affected. How to get broader participation and how to make just decisions in the absence of universal participation are difficult practical problems but they are not new problems for ethical theorists. Geoengineering raises ethical issues but it doesn't raise any new ethical issues. So, I don't see why ethicists are interested in this topic. With regards to ethics, iIt seems to me that there is nothing new under the sun. Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu +1 650 704 7212 http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab Sent from a limited-typing keyboard On Nov 11, 2012, at 10:53, Gregory Benford xbenf...@gmail.com wrote: The idea that ethical merit can be diagnosed before we know much about how it works, and how well, is...useless. I find it curious that the ethicists want to jump on a subject when it's still barely begun. Reminds me of a decade ago for SRM, about which we still know little, because we don;t do experiments. Gregory Benford On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:06 AM, RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The wide range of geoengineering technologies currently being discussed makes it prudent that each technique should be evaluated individually for its ethical merit. Amen. - Greg From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, November 10, 2012 4:34:02 PM 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
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
Dear Gregory, We need to learn a lot more, but we have already learned a lot by doing numerical experiments. And some outdoor experiments are too dangerous to ever do. Nuclear tests are a prime example. Alan Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor) Department of Environmental Sciences Rutgers University 14 College Farm Road New Brunswick, NJ 08901 rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock/ Sent from my iPhone. +1-732-881-1610 On Nov 11, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Gregory Benford xbenf...@gmail.com wrote: The idea that ethical merit can be diagnosed before we know much about how it works, and how well, is...useless. I find it curious that the ethicists want to jump on a subject when it's still barely begun. Reminds me of a decade ago for SRM, about which we still know little, because we don;t do experiments. Gregory Benford On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:06 AM, RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The wide range of geoengineering technologies currently being discussed makes it prudent that each technique should be evaluated individually for its ethical merit. Amen. - Greg From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, November 10, 2012 4:34:02 PM 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.
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
The ethicist have nothing else to jump on. A nyway climate control is not an ethical issue. Geoengineering practice will not be decided by the whole worl d but by parts with similar needs for climate control and it will be local climate control. It won't ever be a matter of ethics except on a local level. T here is no way one region can impose climate control on another with different needs except by violence. In my humble opinion the power of that logic is so great we should never consider global geoengineering. - Original Message - From: Gregory Benford xbenf...@gmail.com To: gh...@sbcglobal.net Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 1:53:07 PM 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 idea that ethical merit can be diagnosed before we know much about how it works, and how well, is...useless. I find it curious that the ethicists want to jump on a subject when it's still barely begun. Reminds me of a decade ago for SRM, about which we still know little, because we don;t do experiments. Gregory Benford On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:06 AM, RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The wide range of geoengineering technologies currently being discussed makes it prudent that each technique should be evaluated individually for its ethical merit. Amen. - Greg From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, November 10, 2012 4:34:02 PM 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
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
Stephen, I think you misunderstand my point. To think quantitatively about geoengineering, we need arithmetic but geoengineering adds nothing to the study of arithmetic. Geoengineering is therefore not a fitting field of study for arithmeticians, but it may make sense for geoengineers to speak with arithmeticians when confronted with thorny arithmetic problems. To think ethically about geoengineering, we need to rely on the progress philosophers have made in the study of ethics but I simply do not see how geoengineering adds anything to the study of ethical theory. There is nothing logically new about this problem. It may differ in magnitude and scale from previous ethical dilemmas, but there is nothing that is qualitatively new from an ethical dimension. In other words, I am not arguing that geoengineering does not need philosophy. I am arguing that philosophers do not need geoengineering, in the same way that arithmeticians do not need geoengineering. If you think that geoengineering poses any fundamentally new philosophic problems, I would like to hear what they are. Best, Ken ___ 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?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI Geophysical Limits to Global Wind Powerhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U7PXjUG-Yk More videos http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Stephen Gardiner smg...@u.washington.eduwrote: Dear Ken, I hereby challenge you (in the friendliest way) to a public debate on the ethics of geoengineering, and in particular your thesis about the irrelevance of philosophy. I'd be glad to host it up here at the University of Washington. With all due respect, we had an exchange on this list back in April, and I don't think you've addressed that yet. I find your views strange. It would be good to have this out, to see what the central issues between us are and whether they make any difference for geoengineering policy. It might also be fun. Best wishes, Steve Stephen M. Gardiner Professor of Philosophy Ben Rabinowitz Endowed Professor of the Human Dimensions of the Environment Department of Philosophy Box 353350 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 USA (206) 221-6459 (telephone) (206) 685 8740 (fax) http://depts.washington.edu/philweb/faculty/gardiner.html On Nov 11, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote: So what is new under the sun? Don't these ethical problems have the same logical structure as those that have plagued humanity since its inception? On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Benjamin Hale bh...@colorado.eduwrote: Maybe you guys should read a bit more before making such pronouncements, or at least consider a bit more deeply how vexing and multidimensional the geoengineering challenge really is. Where ethics goes, so too goes policy and politics. If you think there's nothing new under the sun there, you're speaking from a strange place indeed. 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 -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:04 PM To: xbenf...@gmail.com Cc: gh...@sbcglobal.net; geoengineering@googlegroups.com 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 I don't think that geoengineering brings up any ethical issue that have not been faced from time immemorial. Since the beginning of time people have made decisions that affect others without getting the consent of everyone ( or everything ) affected. How to get broader participation and how to make just decisions in the absence of universal participation are difficult practical problems but they are not new problems for ethical theorists. Geoengineering raises ethical issues but it doesn't raise any new ethical issues. So, I don't see why ethicists are interested in this topic. With regards to ethics, iIt seems to me that there is nothing new under the sun. Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu +1 650 704 7212 http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab Sent from a limited-typing keyboard On Nov 11, 2012, at 10:53, Gregory Benford xbenf...@gmail.com wrote: The idea that ethical merit can be diagnosed before
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
Ken, During an email exchange on this topic in April, in which several of us offered diverse perspectives on philosophy, you said: It is clear to me that my conception of what constitutes 'philosophy' is different from both the popular conception and the conception of currently practicing academic philosophers. And later, Call me obtuse, but nothing in this discussion has caused me to reassess the view I started out with... Your recent emails suggest you have little new to contribute to this discussion. So before asking others to demonstrate the novelty of the ethical questions raised by geoengineering, it would be nice to have some fresh arguments from your end. Ninad On Sunday, November 11, 2012 10:46:02 PM UTC+1, Ken Caldeira wrote: Stephen, I think you misunderstand my point. To think quantitatively about geoengineering, we need arithmetic but geoengineering adds nothing to the study of arithmetic. Geoengineering is therefore not a fitting field of study for arithmeticians, but it may make sense for geoengineers to speak with arithmeticians when confronted with thorny arithmetic problems. To think ethically about geoengineering, we need to rely on the progress philosophers have made in the study of ethics but I simply do not see how geoengineering adds anything to the study of ethical theory. There is nothing logically new about this problem. It may differ in magnitude and scale from previous ethical dilemmas, but there is nothing that is qualitatively new from an ethical dimension. In other words, I am not arguing that geoengineering does not need philosophy. I am arguing that philosophers do not need geoengineering, in the same way that arithmeticians do not need geoengineering. If you think that geoengineering poses any fundamentally new philosophic problems, I would like to hear what they are. Best, Ken ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu javascript: http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira *Our YouTube videos* The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the planet?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI Geophysical Limits to Global Wind Powerhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U7PXjUG-Yk More videos http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Stephen Gardiner smg...@u.washington.edu javascript: wrote: Dear Ken, I hereby challenge you (in the friendliest way) to a public debate on the ethics of geoengineering, and in particular your thesis about the irrelevance of philosophy. I'd be glad to host it up here at the University of Washington. With all due respect, we had an exchange on this list back in April, and I don't think you've addressed that yet. I find your views strange. It would be good to have this out, to see what the central issues between us are and whether they make any difference for geoengineering policy. It might also be fun. Best wishes, Steve Stephen M. Gardiner Professor of Philosophy Ben Rabinowitz Endowed Professor of the Human Dimensions of the Environment Department of Philosophy Box 353350 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 USA (206) 221-6459 (telephone) (206) 685 8740 (fax) http://depts.washington.edu/philweb/faculty/gardiner.html On Nov 11, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote: So what is new under the sun? Don't these ethical problems have the same logical structure as those that have plagued humanity since its inception? On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Benjamin Hale bh...@colorado.edujavascript: wrote: Maybe you guys should read a bit more before making such pronouncements, or at least consider a bit more deeply how vexing and multidimensional the geoengineering challenge really is. Where ethics goes, so too goes policy and politics. If you think there's nothing new under the sun there, you're speaking from a strange place indeed. 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 -Original Message- From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:04 PM To: xben...@gmail.com javascript: Cc: gh...@sbcglobal.net javascript:; geoengi...@googlegroups.comjavascript: 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 I don't think that geoengineering brings up any ethical issue
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
Niad, I am still waiting for you to tell me what new problems geoengineering poses for philosophy. When I asked this in the past, I never received a satisfying answer, and now you are criticizing me for asking again. Rather than criticizing me for asking a question, why not answer the question: *What new problem does geoengineering pose for philosophy?* Best, Ken On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Ninad Bondre nrbon...@gmail.com wrote: Ken, During an email exchange on this topic in April, in which several of us offered diverse perspectives on philosophy, you said: It is clear to me that my conception of what constitutes 'philosophy' is different from both the popular conception and the conception of currently practicing academic philosophers. And later, Call me obtuse, but nothing in this discussion has caused me to reassess the view I started out with... Your recent emails suggest you have little new to contribute to this discussion. So before asking others to demonstrate the novelty of the ethical questions raised by geoengineering, it would be nice to have some fresh arguments from your end. Ninad On Sunday, November 11, 2012 10:46:02 PM UTC+1, Ken Caldeira wrote: Stephen, I think you misunderstand my point. To think quantitatively about geoengineering, we need arithmetic but geoengineering adds nothing to the study of arithmetic. Geoengineering is therefore not a fitting field of study for arithmeticians, but it may make sense for geoengineers to speak with arithmeticians when confronted with thorny arithmetic problems. To think ethically about geoengineering, we need to rely on the progress philosophers have made in the study of ethics but I simply do not see how geoengineering adds anything to the study of ethical theory. There is nothing logically new about this problem. It may differ in magnitude and scale from previous ethical dilemmas, but there is nothing that is qualitatively new from an ethical dimension. In other words, I am not arguing that geoengineering does not need philosophy. I am arguing that philosophers do not need geoengineering, in the same way that arithmeticians do not need geoengineering. If you think that geoengineering poses any fundamentally new philosophic problems, I would like to hear what they are. Best, Ken ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@**carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/**caldeiralabhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira *Our YouTube videos* The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the planet?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI Geophysical Limits to Global Wind Powerhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U7PXjUG-Yk More videos http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Stephen Gardiner smg...@u.washington.edu wrote: Dear Ken, I hereby challenge you (in the friendliest way) to a public debate on the ethics of geoengineering, and in particular your thesis about the irrelevance of philosophy. I'd be glad to host it up here at the University of Washington. With all due respect, we had an exchange on this list back in April, and I don't think you've addressed that yet. I find your views strange. It would be good to have this out, to see what the central issues between us are and whether they make any difference for geoengineering policy. It might also be fun. Best wishes, Steve Stephen M. Gardiner Professor of Philosophy Ben Rabinowitz Endowed Professor of the Human Dimensions of the Environment Department of Philosophy Box 353350 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 USA (206) 221-6459 (telephone) (206) 685 8740 (fax) http://depts.washington.edu/**philweb/faculty/gardiner.htmlhttp://depts.washington.edu/philweb/faculty/gardiner.html On Nov 11, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote: So what is new under the sun? Don't these ethical problems have the same logical structure as those that have plagued humanity since its inception? On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Benjamin Hale bh...@colorado.eduwrote: Maybe you guys should read a bit more before making such pronouncements, or at least consider a bit more deeply how vexing and multidimensional the geoengineering challenge really is. Where ethics goes, so too goes policy and politics. If you think there's nothing new under the sun there, you're speaking from a strange place indeed. 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.comhttp://cruelmistress.wordpress.com/ Ethics, Policy Environment -Original Message- From: geoengi...@googlegroups.**com
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
Ken, no offense, but you're thinking about this very narrowly and very naively. It's probably true that geoengineering doesn't pose many new metaethical questions, but ethics isn't limited to metaethics in much the same way that mathematics isn't limited to pure math. There are applied mathematical questions associated with geoengineering, just as much as there are applied ethical questions associated with geoengineering. So to start, try the question: Ought we to geoengineer? That's a fairly general question, but there are lots of little questions wrapped up in it. Also, many of those little questions don't take the same form as ought I to plow my fields? or ought I to stick a fork in my dog? If you don't see the vast range of ethical questions associated with geoengineering, we have a lot more to worry about than I've otherwise been assuming. Benjamin Hale Assistant Professor/Graduate Director (ENVS) Philosophy http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy and Environmental Studies http://envs.colorado.edu/ University of Colorado, Boulder Tel: 303 735-3624; Fax: 303 735-1576 http://www.practicalreason.com http://www.practicalreason.com/ http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com/ Ethics, Policy http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cepe Environment From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 5:04 PM To: nrbon...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 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 Niad, I am still waiting for you to tell me what new problems geoengineering poses for philosophy. When I asked this in the past, I never received a satisfying answer, and now you are criticizing me for asking again. Rather than criticizing me for asking a question, why not answer the question: What new problem does geoengineering pose for philosophy? Best, Ken On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Ninad Bondre nrbon...@gmail.com wrote: Ken, During an email exchange on this topic in April, in which several of us offered diverse perspectives on philosophy, you said: It is clear to me that my conception of what constitutes 'philosophy' is different from both the popular conception and the conception of currently practicing academic philosophers. And later, Call me obtuse, but nothing in this discussion has caused me to reassess the view I started out with... Your recent emails suggest you have little new to contribute to this discussion. So before asking others to demonstrate the novelty of the ethical questions raised by geoengineering, it would be nice to have some fresh arguments from your end. Ninad On Sunday, November 11, 2012 10:46:02 PM UTC+1, Ken Caldeira wrote: Stephen, I think you misunderstand my point. To think quantitatively about geoengineering, we need arithmetic but geoengineering adds nothing to the study of arithmetic. Geoengineering is therefore not a fitting field of study for arithmeticians, but it may make sense for geoengineers to speak with arithmeticians when confronted with thorny arithmetic problems. To think ethically about geoengineering, we need to rely on the progress philosophers have made in the study of ethics but I simply do not see how geoengineering adds anything to the study of ethical theory. There is nothing logically new about this problem. It may differ in magnitude and scale from previous ethical dilemmas, but there is nothing that is qualitatively new from an ethical dimension. In other words, I am not arguing that geoengineering does not need philosophy. I am arguing that philosophers do not need geoengineering, in the same way that arithmeticians do not need geoengineering. If you think that geoengineering poses any fundamentally new philosophic problems, I would like to hear what they are. Best, Ken ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira Our YouTube videos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the planet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U7PXjUG-Yk Geophysical Limits to Global Wind Power http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos More videos On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Stephen Gardiner smg...@u.washington.edu wrote: Dear Ken, I hereby challenge you (in the friendliest way) to a public debate on the ethics of geoengineering, and in particular your thesis about the irrelevance of philosophy. I'd be glad to host it up here at the University of Washington. With
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
Those who conduct numerical experiments have an ethical obligation to adjust them in the light of natural experiments and historical contingencies. Russell Seitz se...@post.harvard.edu -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/P86YmyRysk8J. 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
I quote from my earlier missive: *To think ethically about geoengineering, we need to rely on the progress philosophers have made in the study of ethics but I simply do not see how geoengineering adds anything to the study of ethical theory. * Judging from the responses, my assertion seems correct. If I read Benjamin correctly, there is nothing in geoengineering for philosophical theory, and the interest is in the realm of applied philosophy: *How can the body of theory developed by philosophers be applied in these particular cases?* Again, I think this is similar to the case with, say, statistics: *Statisticians are needed to help apply statistical theory to geoengineering-relevant climate model simulations, but these particular simulations do not pose new problems for theoretical development of statistics.* If I asked whether geoengineering poses new fundamental problems in statistical theory, I don't think the statisticians are likely to respond by asserting that I have little to add to discussions or that I am thinking narrowly. They would answer the question and not resort to *ad hominem*remarks. Perhaps this represents a cultural difference between philosophers and statisticians, but the statisticians would tell me that I cannot base such conclusions on such a small sample size. ___ 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?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI Geophysical Limits to Global Wind Powerhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U7PXjUG-Yk More videos http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Benjamin Hale bh...@colorado.edu wrote: Ken, no offense, but you’re thinking about this very narrowly and very naively. It’s probably true that geoengineering doesn’t pose many new metaethical questions, but ethics isn’t limited to metaethics in much the same way that mathematics isn’t limited to pure math. There are applied mathematical questions associated with geoengineering, just as much as there are applied ethical questions associated with geoengineering. ** ** So to start, try the question: “Ought we to geoengineer?” That’s a fairly general question, but there are lots of little questions wrapped up in it. Also, many of those little questions don’t take the same form as “ought I to plow my fields?” or “ought I to stick a fork in my dog?” ** ** If you don’t see the vast range of ethical questions associated with geoengineering, we have a lot more to worry about than I’ve otherwise been assuming. ** ** Benjamin Hale Assistant Professor/Graduate Director (ENVS) Philosophy http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy and Environmental Studieshttp://envs.colorado.edu/ ** ** University of Colorado, Boulder Tel: 303 735-3624; Fax: 303 735-1576 http://www.practicalreason.com http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com *Ethics, Policy Environment http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cepe* ** ** ** ** ** ** *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto: geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Caldeira *Sent:* Sunday, November 11, 2012 5:04 PM *To:* nrbon...@gmail.com *Cc:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com *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 ** ** Niad, ** ** I am still waiting for you to tell me what new problems geoengineering poses for philosophy. ** ** When I asked this in the past, I never received a satisfying answer, and now you are criticizing me for asking again. ** ** Rather than criticizing me for asking a question, why not answer the question: *What new problem does geoengineering pose for philosophy?* ** ** Best, ** ** Ken ** ** On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Ninad Bondre nrbon...@gmail.com wrote:* *** Ken, During an email exchange on this topic in April, in which several of us offered diverse perspectives on philosophy, you said: It is clear to me that my conception of what constitutes 'philosophy' is different from both the popular conception and the conception of currently practicing academic philosophers. And later, Call me obtuse, but nothing in this discussion has caused me to reassess the view I started out with... Your recent emails suggest you have little new to contribute to this discussion. So before asking others to demonstrate the novelty of the ethical questions raised by geoengineering, it would be nice to have some fresh arguments from your end. Ninad On Sunday, November 11, 2012
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
Ken, Your clarification of what you are saying leaves some questions unanswered. You said you don't see why ethicists are in interested in the topic of geoengineering. I believe the answer is they are interested because they are not comfortable that the geoengineers will do a competent job of applying the teachings of philosophical theory to the pursuit of geoengineering concepts. By the way, I chuckled at your applying the adage nothing new under the sun to the topic of solar radiation management. David From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 4:45 PM To: Stephen Gardiner Cc: Benjamin Hale; xbenf...@gmail.com; gh...@sbcglobal.net; geoengineering; ise...@listserv.tamu.edu; Debra Satz; Paul R. Ehrlich; Mike Wallace; Henry Shue; Dale Jamieson 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 Stephen, I think you misunderstand my point. To think quantitatively about geoengineering, we need arithmetic but geoengineering adds nothing to the study of arithmetic. Geoengineering is therefore not a fitting field of study for arithmeticians, but it may make sense for geoengineers to speak with arithmeticians when confronted with thorny arithmetic problems. To think ethically about geoengineering, we need to rely on the progress philosophers have made in the study of ethics but I simply do not see how geoengineering adds anything to the study of ethical theory. There is nothing logically new about this problem. It may differ in magnitude and scale from previous ethical dilemmas, but there is nothing that is qualitatively new from an ethical dimension. In other words, I am not arguing that geoengineering does not need philosophy. I am arguing that philosophers do not need geoengineering, in the same way that arithmeticians do not need geoengineering. If you think that geoengineering poses any fundamentally new philosophic problems, I would like to hear what they are. Best, Ken ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira Our YouTube videos The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the planet?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI Geophysical Limits to Global Wind Powerhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U7PXjUG-Yk More videoshttp://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Stephen Gardiner smg...@u.washington.edumailto:smg...@u.washington.edu wrote: Dear Ken, I hereby challenge you (in the friendliest way) to a public debate on the ethics of geoengineering, and in particular your thesis about the irrelevance of philosophy. I'd be glad to host it up here at the University of Washington. With all due respect, we had an exchange on this list back in April, and I don't think you've addressed that yet. I find your views strange. It would be good to have this out, to see what the central issues between us are and whether they make any difference for geoengineering policy. It might also be fun. Best wishes, Steve Stephen M. Gardiner Professor of Philosophy Ben Rabinowitz Endowed Professor of the Human Dimensions of the Environment Department of Philosophy Box 353350 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 USA (206) 221-6459tel:%28206%29%20221-6459 (telephone) (206) 685 8740tel:%28206%29%20685%208740 (fax) http://depts.washington.edu/philweb/faculty/gardiner.html On Nov 11, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote: So what is new under the sun? Don't these ethical problems have the same logical structure as those that have plagued humanity since its inception? On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Benjamin Hale bh...@colorado.edumailto:bh...@colorado.edu wrote: Maybe you guys should read a bit more before making such pronouncements, or at least consider a bit more deeply how vexing and multidimensional the geoengineering challenge really is. Where ethics goes, so too goes policy and politics. If you think there's nothing new under the sun there, you're speaking from a strange place indeed. Benjamin Hale Assistant Professor/Graduate Director (ENVS) Philosophy and Environmental Studies University of Colorado, Boulder Tel: 303 735-3624tel:303%20735-3624; Fax: 303 735-1576tel:303%20735-1576 http://www.practicalreason.comhttp://www.practicalreason.com/ http://cruelmistress.wordpress.comhttp://cruelmistress.wordpress.com/ Ethics, Policy Environment -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
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
Well. I would say that the issue is joined. From: euggor...@comcast.net [mailto:euggor...@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 9:40 PM To: Hawkins, Dave Cc: Benjamin Hale; xbenf...@gmail.com; gh...@sbcglobal.net; geoengineering; ise...@listserv.tamu.edu; Debra Satz; Paul R. Ehrlich; Mike Wallace; Henry Shue; Dale Jamieson; kcalde...@gmail.com; Stephen Gardiner 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 What an outrage! Should engineers apply philosophical theory to determine what they study? In any case politicians and related will decide what is implemented, not the engineers. Most politicians are unimpressed by ethics. Tell the ethicists to stuff it; but in any case leave geoengineering alone and focus on the decision makers. From: Dave Hawkins dhawk...@nrdc.orgmailto:dhawk...@nrdc.org To: kcalde...@gmail.commailto:kcalde...@gmail.com, Stephen Gardiner smg...@u.washington.edumailto:smg...@u.washington.edu Cc: Benjamin Hale bh...@colorado.edumailto:bh...@colorado.edu, xbenf...@gmail.commailto:xbenf...@gmail.com, gh...@sbcglobal.netmailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com, ise...@listserv.tamu.edumailto:ise...@listserv.tamu.edu, Debra Satz ds...@stanford.edumailto:ds...@stanford.edu, Paul R. Ehrlich p...@stanford.edumailto:p...@stanford.edu, Mike Wallace wall...@atmos.washington.edumailto:wall...@atmos.washington.edu, Henry Shue henry.s...@politics.ox.ac.ukmailto:henry.s...@politics.ox.ac.uk, Dale Jamieson dale.jamie...@nyu.edumailto:dale.jamie...@nyu.edu Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:39:22 PM 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 Ken, Your clarification of what you are saying leaves some questions unanswered. You said you don’t see why ethicists are in interested in the topic of geoengineering. I believe the answer is they are interested because they are not comfortable that the geoengineers will do a competent job of applying the teachings of philosophical theory to the pursuit of geoengineering concepts. By the way, I chuckled at your applying the adage “nothing new under the sun” to the topic of solar radiation management. David From: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 4:45 PM To: Stephen Gardiner Cc: Benjamin Hale; xbenf...@gmail.commailto:xbenf...@gmail.com; gh...@sbcglobal.netmailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net; geoengineering; ise...@listserv.tamu.edumailto:ise...@listserv.tamu.edu; Debra Satz; Paul R. Ehrlich; Mike Wallace; Henry Shue; Dale Jamieson 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 Stephen, I think you misunderstand my point. To think quantitatively about geoengineering, we need arithmetic but geoengineering adds nothing to the study of arithmetic. Geoengineering is therefore not a fitting field of study for arithmeticians, but it may make sense for geoengineers to speak with arithmeticians when confronted with thorny arithmetic problems. To think ethically about geoengineering, we need to rely on the progress philosophers have made in the study of ethics but I simply do not see how geoengineering adds anything to the study of ethical theory. There is nothing logically new about this problem. It may differ in magnitude and scale from previous ethical dilemmas, but there is nothing that is qualitatively new from an ethical dimension. In other words, I am not arguing that geoengineering does not need philosophy. I am arguing that philosophers do not need geoengineering, in the same way that arithmeticians do not need geoengineering. If you think that geoengineering poses any fundamentally new philosophic problems, I would like to hear what they are. Best, Ken ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira Our YouTube videos The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the planet?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI Geophysical Limits to Global Wind Powerhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U7PXjUG-Yk More videoshttp://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Stephen Gardiner
