Movatterモバイル変換

Geoengineering is defined as the ‘deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climatic system with the aim of reducing global warming’. The technological proposals for doing this are highly speculative. Research is at an early stage, but there is a strong consensus that technologies would, if realisable, have profound and surprising ramifications.Geoengineering would seem to be an archetype of technology as social experiment, blurring lines that separate research from deployment and scientific knowledge from technological artefacts. Looking into (...) the experimental systems ofgeoengineering, we can see the negotiation of what is known and unknown. The paper argues that, in renegotiating such systems, we can approach a new mode of governance—collective experimentation. This has important ramifications not just for how we imagine futuregeoengineering technologies, but also for how we governgeoengineering experiments currently under discussion. (shrink)

Direct download(7 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   10 citations  

Because of the lack of a meaningful international response to global warming,geoengineering has emerged as a potential technological response to climate change. But, thus far, little attention has been given to how religion impacts our understanding ofgeoengineering. I defend the need to incorporate theological reflection in the conversation ofgeoengineering by investigating howgeoengineering proposals contain an implicit anthropology. A significant framework for our assessment ofgeoengineering is the balance of human capability and (...) fallibility—a balance that is at the center of theological and religious interpretations of the meaning of the human condition. Similarly,geoengineering challenges our past understandings of theological anthropology. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   7 citations  

Some scientists suggest that it might be possible to reflect a portion of incoming sunlight back into space to reduce climate change and its impacts. Others argue that such solar radiation management (SRM)geoengineering is inherently incompatible with democracy. In this article, we reject this incompatibility argument. First, we counterargue that technologies such as SRM lack innate political characteristics and predetermined social effects, and that democracy need not be deliberative to serve as a standard for governance. We then rebut (...) each of the argument’s core claims, countering that (1) democratic institutions are sufficiently resilient to manage SRM, (2) opting out of governance decisions is not a fundamental democratic right, (3) SRM may not require an undue degree of technocracy, and (4) its implementation may not concentrate power and promote authoritarianism. Although we reject the incompatibility argument, we do not argue that SRM is necessarily, or even likely to be, democratic in practice. (shrink)

Export citation   Bookmark   3 citations  

Manygeoengineering projects have been proposed to address climate change, including both solar radiation management and carbon removal techniques. Some of these methods would introduce additional compounds into the atmosphere or the ocean. This poses a difficult conundrum: Is it permissible to remediate one pollutant by introducing a second pollutant into a system that has already been damaged, threatened, or altered? We frame this conundrum as the ‘‘Problem of Permissible Pollution.’’ In this paper, we explore this problem by taking (...) up ocean fertilization and advancing an argument that rests on three moral claims. We first observe that pollution is, in many respects, a context-dependent matter. This observation leads us to argue for a ‘‘justifiability criterion.’’ Second, we suggest that remediating actions must take into account the antecedent conditions that have given rise to their consideration. We call this second observation the ‘‘antecedent conditions criterion.’’ Finally, we observe that ocean fertilization, and other relatedgeoengineering technologies, propose not strictly to clean up carbon emissions, but actually to move the universe to some future, unknown state. Given the introduced criteria, we impose a ‘‘future-state constraint’’. We conclude that ocean fertilization is not an acceptable solution for mitigating climate change. In attempting to shift the universe to a future stategeoengineering sidelines consideration of the antecedent conditions that have given rise to it —conditions, we note, that in many cases involve unjustified carbon emissions —and it must appeal to an impossibly large set of affected parties. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   8 citations  

Geoengineering; specifically Solar Radiation Management ; has been proposed to effect rapid influence over the Earth’s climate system in order to counteract Anthropogenic Global Warming. This poses near-term to long-term governance challenges; some of which are within the planning horizon of current political administrations. Previous discussions of governance of SRM have focused primarily on two scenarios: an isolated “Greenfinger” individual; or state; acting independently ; versus more consensual; internationalist approaches. I argue that these models represent a very limited sub-set (...) of plausible deployment scenarios. To generate a range of alternative models; I offer a short; relatively unstructured discussion of a range of different types of warfare – each with an analogous SRM deployment regime. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Geoengineering – roughly “the intentional manipulation of the planetary systems at a global scale” (Keith 2000) – to combat climate change is often introduced as a “plan B”: an alternative solution in case “plan A”, reducing emissions, fails. This framing is typically deployed as part of an argument that research and development is necessary in case robust conventional mitigation is not forthcoming, or proves insufficient to prevent dangerous climate impacts. Since coming to prominence with the release of the Royal (...) Society report in 2009 (Shepherd et al. 2009, v), the Plan B framing has proved popular with scientists, in policy circles, and in the news media (see Nerlich and Jaspal 2012; Luokkanen, Huttunen, and Hilden 2014). Though sometimes used to refer togeoengineering as a whole, it is associated particularly strongly with stratospheric sulfate injection (SSI) techniques. Consequently, these will be our focus here. We argue that the plan B framing is particularly ill-suited to the integrative assessment of options within climate policy, because it oversimplifies a complex issue in a misleading and deceptive way. For instance, it highlights extreme positions, presents SSI as an alternative independent from mainstream policies, ignores the multiplicity of options available, and neglects threats of morally indecent SSI in a context of ongoing political inertia. We are particularly concerned about the way ‘Plan B’ risks conveying an implicit hyper-optimism about SSI, and so obscures the need for ethical standards. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   7 citations  

Geoengineering ? die technische Manipulation des Klimas ? muss mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit schon bald im grossen Stil Wirklichkeit werden. Denn zwei Drittel der wissenschaftlichen Analysen, die das Einhalten der 2-Grad-Leitplanke globaler Erwärmung des Klimasystems für möglich halten, gehen davon aus, dass unsere globale Wirtschaft noch in diesem Jahrhundert emissionsneutral funktioniert. Das scheint weder in der breiten Öffentlichkeit noch in der Politik hinlänglich bekannt zu sein.

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark  

This chapter discusses how solargeoengineering might affect different African states, with a particular focus on its impact on social justice from an African perspective.

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark  

In early policy work, climate engineering is often described as a global public good. This paper argues that the paradigm example ofgeoengineering—stratospheric sulfate injection (hereafter ‘SSI’)—does not fit the canonical technical definition of a global public good, and that more relaxed versions are unhelpful. More importantly, it claims that, regardless of the technicalities, the public good framing is seriously misleading, in part because it arbitrarily marginalizes ethical concerns. Both points suggest that more clarity is needed about the aims (...) ofgeoengineering policy—and especially governance—and that this requires special attention to ethics. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   8 citations  

The strongest arguments for the permissibility ofgeoengineering (also known as climate engineering) rely implicitly on non-ideal theory—roughly, the theory of justice as applied to situations of partial compliance with principles of ideal justice. In an ideally just world, such arguments acknowledge, humanity should not deploygeoengineering; but in our imperfect world, society may need to complement mitigation and adaptation withgeoengineering to reduce injustices associated with anthropogenic climate change. We interpret research proponents’ arguments as an application (...) of a particular branch of non-ideal theory known as “clinical theory.” Clinical theory aims to identify politically feasible institutions or policies that would address existing (or impending) injustice without violating certain kinds of moral permissibility constraints. We argue for three implications of clinical theory: First, conditional on falling costs and feasibility, clinical theory provides strong support for somegeoengineering techniques that aim to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Second, if some kinds of carbon dioxide removal technologies are supported by clinical theory, then clinical theory further supports using those technologies to enable “overshoot” scenarios in which developing countries exceed the cumulative emissions caps that would apply in ideal circumstances. Third, because of tensions between political feasibility and moral permissibility, clinical theory provides only weak support forgeoengineering techniques that aim to manage incoming solar radiation. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   7 citations  

Stephen Gardiner argues thatgeoengineering does not meet the “canonical technical definition” of a global public good, and that it is misleading to framegeoengineering as a public good. A public good is something that is nonrival and nonexcludable. Contrary to Gardiner’s claims,geoengineering meets both of these criteria. Framinggeoengineering as a public good is useful because it allows commentators to draw on the existing economic, philosophical, and social scientific literature on the governance of public (...) goods. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   3 citations  

If deployed, aerosolgeoengineering (AG) could involve unfairness to both present and future parties. I discuss three broad risks of unfairness that an AG deployment policy might carry: (1) causing disproportionate harm to those least responsible for climate change, (2) burdening future parties with the costs and risks of AG, and (3) excluding some interested parties from contributing to AG decision-making. Yet despite these risks, it may be too hasty to reject AG deployment as a potential climate change policy. (...) I argue that since it is very unlikely that a completely fair climate change policy will be pursued, we have ethical reason to prefer some “incompletely fair” policy. Given various facts about our world, it might be the case that some AG policy is ethically preferable to many other feasible climate change policies, even if AG carries deeply problematic risks of unfairness. (shrink)

Direct download(6 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   9 citations  

Geoengineering is a technological response to anthropogenic climate change. There are two kinds ofgeoengineering: Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). SRM aims at reducing the amount of incoming solar light and CDR at reducing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Over the past decades,geoengineering has moved from a fringe proposal to a more mainstream contender along with mitigation and adaptation to avert climate change. However, it faces important ethical challenges.

No categories

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark  

Geoengineering is commonly defined as ‘the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change’. Technologies which...

Direct download(6 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   2 citations  

Ethics is highly relevant to grand technological interventions into basic planetary systems on a global scale. Focusing on climate engineering, this chapter identifies a large number of salient concerns but argues that early policy framings often marginalize these and so avoid important questions of justification. It also suggests that, since it is widely held thatgeoengineering has become a serious option mainly because of political inertia, there are important contextual issues, especially around the paradoxical question, “What should we do, (...) ethically speaking, given that we have not done, and will continue not to do, what we should be doing?” Taking such issues seriously helps to explain why some regardgeoengineering as ethically troubling and highlights the largely neglected threat of interventions that discriminate against future generations. We should take seriously the risk that, far from being simply a welcome new tool for climate action,geoengineering may become yet another manifestation of the underlying problem. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Geoengineering has been broadly and helpfully defined as “the intentional manipulation of the earth's climate to counteract anthropogenic climate change or its warming effects” (Corner and Pidgeon , 26). Although there exists a rapidly growing literature on the ethics ofgeoengineering, very little has been written about its gender dimensions. The authors consider four contexts in whichgeoengineering appears to have important gender dimensions: (1) the demographics of those pushing the current agenda, (2) the overall vision of (...) control it involves, (3) the design of the particular technologies, and (4) whomgeoengineering will most affect and benefit. After detailing these four gender dimensions, we consider three ways in which thegeoengineering discourse could be enriched if it became more sensitive to issues of gender. These include increasing the focus on the concrete other, recognizing the socially transformative potential ofgeoengineering technologies, and engaging in value-sensitive design. Although ultimately remaining agnostic on the desirability ofgeoengineering, the paper brings gender considerations into a discussion from which they have been conspicuously absent. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   9 citations  

Global-scale solargeoengineering raises critical ethical questions, including questions of distributive, procedural, and intergenerational justice. Althoughgeoengineering is sometimes framed as a response to injustice, insofar as it might benefit those most vulnerable to climate-related harms,geoengineering also has the potential to exacerbate climate injustice, especially if control of research, governance, and potential plans for deployment remains concentrated in the hands of a few. The scope and scale of solargeoengineering, the diverse concerns it raises, and (...) the lack of consensus surrounding it pose particular challenges for justice. I argue that addressing these challenges requires an inclusive, dialogical approach that takes seriously diverse perspectives, particularly the perspectives of those who are most affected by climate change and those who have had the least voice in decisions surrounding it. The concept of recognition––as developed in the work of Nancy Fraser, David Schlosberg, and others––offers a normative ground for this approach and can help guide the development of institutions and practices directed towardgeoengineering justice. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   8 citations  

Climate change – if not averted adequately and in time – could cause serious disruptions in society including issues associated with global warming and sea-level rise. It has been argued that geoen...

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   5 citations  

Against the background of continuing inadequacy in global efforts to address climate change and apparent social and political inertia, ever greater interest is being generated in the idea thatgeoengineering may offer some solution to this problem. I do not take a position, here, on whether or notgeoengineering could ever be morally justifiable. My goal in this paper is more modest – but also has broader implications. I aim to show that even if some form of (...) class='Hi'>geoengineering might be ethically acceptable in certain specific circumstances, lab-based research into such techniques could nevertheless have morally problematic consequences. I support this claim by explaining that our current state of uncertainty regarding how the impacts ofgeoengineering interventions could be geographically distributed may help to promote international agreement on fair rules for the governance ofgeoengineering. In these circumstances of scientific uncertainty, international actors also face uncertainty regarding who the winners and losers could be with respect to potential rules ofgeoengineering governance, thereby obstructing the pursuit of self-interest in the selection of such rules. Instead of a research first approach, then, we have reason to take a governance first approach – ensuring that fair international institutions to regulategeoengineering activities are established before further research is conducted into how the costs and benefits of such interventions could be distributed. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   1 citation  

As it becomes more and more doubtful that the international community will take adequate steps to mitigate climate change, interest has grown in the possibility of engineering earth’s climate to prevent catastrophic levels of warming. Unfortunately,geoengineering schemes have the potential to create grave, unintended consequences. This paper explores the extent to which the precautionary principle (PP), which was developed as a guideline for responding to uncertainty in the policy sphere, can provide guidance for responding to the potential benefits (...) and hazards associated withgeoengineering. The paper argues that there are so many different versions of the precautionary principle and so many potential strategies forgeoengineering that there cannot be any single, simple relationship between the two. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify a set of lessons that many versions of the PP suggest for those consideringgeoengineering proposals. Moreover, examination of thegeoengineering case provides an opportunity to reflect on a range of important situations—what this paper will call self-defeating scenarios—in which most versions of the PP provide limited guidance compared to other ethical principles. (shrink)

Direct download(4 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   7 citations  

In their article ‘Ethical and technical challenges in compensating for harm due to solar radiation managementgeoengineering,’ Svoboda and Irvine argue that setting up a just system of compensation...

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   3 citations  

An old book by children’s author Dr. Seuss can be an inspiration to examine the ethical and ontological meaning ofgeoengineering. My argument is based on my critique of the process of ecological restoration as the creation of an artifactual reality. When humanity intentionally interferes with the processes and entities of nature, we change the ontological reality of the natural world. The world becomes a garden, or a zoo, an environment that must be continually managed to meet the goals (...) of human purposes.Geoengineering is a more radical and comprehensive example of this process of planetary management. Thus, as with ecological restoration,geoengineering reinforces the paradigm of human mastery and domination of nature. To counteract this dream of domination, we must, as Dr. Seuss instructed us when we were children, learn to live in the natural world with humility. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   6 citations  

Ethics is highly relevant to grand technological interventions into basic planetary systems on a global scale (roughly, “geoengineering”). Focusing on climate engineering, this chapter identifies a large number of salient concerns (e.g., welfare, rights, justice, political legitimacy) but argues that early policy framings (e.g., emergency, global public good) often marginalize these and so avoid important questions of justification. It also suggests that, since it is widely held thatgeoengineering has become a serious option mainly because of political inertia, (...) there are important contextual issues, especially around the paradoxical question, “What should we do, ethically speaking, given that we have not done, and will continue not to do, what we should be doing?” Taking such issues seriously helps to explain why some regardgeoengineering as ethically troubling and highlights the largely neglected threat of interventions that discriminate against future generations (“parochialgeoengineering”). We should take seriously the risk that, far from being simply a welcome new tool for climate action,geoengineering may become yet another manifestation of the underlying problem. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   4 citations  

According to the “Lesser of Two Evils Argument,” deployment of solar radiation management (SRM)geoengineering in a climate emergency would be morally justified because it likely would be the best option available. A prominent objection to this argument is that a climate emergency might constitute a genuine moral dilemma in which SRM would be impermissible even if it was the best option. However, while conceiving of a climate emergency as a moral dilemma accounts for some ethical concerns about SRM, (...) it requires the controversial claim that there are genuine moral dilemmas, and it potentially undermines moral action guidance in emergency scenarios. Instead, it is better to conceive of climate emergencies as situations calling for agent-regret. This alternative allows us coherently to hold that SRM may be morally problematic even if it ought to be deployed in some scenario. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   1 citation  

There has been much discussion of the moral, legal and prudential implications ofgeoengineering, and of governance structures for both the research and deployment of such technologies. However, insufficient attention has been paid to how such measures might affectgeoengineering in terms of the incentive structures which underwrite scientific progress. There is a tension between the features that make science productive, and the need to governgeoengineering research, which has thus far gone underappreciated. I emphasize how (...) class='Hi'>geoengineering research requires governance which reaches beyond science’s traditional boundaries, and moreover requires knowledge which itself reaches beyond what we traditionally expect scientists to know about. How we govern emerging technologies should be sensitive to the incentive structures which drive science. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   2 citations  

Some authors have called for increased research on various forms ofgeoengineering as a means to address global climate change. This paper focuses on the question of whether a particular form ofgeoengineering, namely deploying sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere to counteract some of the effects of increased greenhouse gas concentrations, would be a just response to climate change. In particular, we examine problems sulfate aerosolgeoengineering (SAG) faces in meeting the requirements of distributive, intergenerational, and procedural (...) justice. We argue that SAG faces obstacles to meeting the requirements of all three considered kinds of justice, because its impacts can harm some persons and communities much more than others; it poses serious risks to future generations; and SAG is especially prone to unilateral implementation. While we do not claim that SAG ought not to be implemented, we argue that it is the responsibility of proponents of SAG to recognize and address these ethical obstacles before advocating its implementation. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   36 citations  

Researchers have explored questions concerning public participation and consent ingeoengineering governance. Yet, the notion of consent has received little attention from researchers, and it is rarely discussed explicitly, despite being prescribed as a normative requirement forgeoengineering research and being used in rejecting somegeoengineering options. As it is noted in the leadinggeoengineering governance principles, i.e. the Oxford Principles, there are different conceptions of consent; the idea of consent ought to be unpacked more carefully (...) if, and when, we invoke it in the discussion. This article offers a theoretical reflection on different conceptions of consent and their place ingeoengineering governance. More specifically, I discuss three models of consent, i.e. explicit consent, implied consent and hypothetical consent, and assess their applicability togeoengineering governance. Although there are different models of consent, much discussion ofgeoengineering governance has committed only to explicit consent. I note that such a commitment springs from a specific ideal political order. Accordingly, we should be wary of any naïve commitment to it so long as the political order we hope for remains open to debate. Finally, I illustrate two approaches to introduce consent into ageoengineering governance framework. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   5 citations  

In response to the Royal Society report’s claim that “the acceptability of geo­engineering will be determined as much by social, legal, and political issues as by scientific and technical factors” (Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty [London: Royal Society, 2009], ix), a number of authors have suggested the key to this challenge is to engage the public ingeoengineering decision-making. In effect, some have argued that inclusion of the public ingeoengineering decision-making is necessary for any (...)geoengineering project to be morally permissible. Yet, while public engagement ongeoengineering comes in various forms, the discussion ingeoengineering governance and the ethics ofgeoengineering have too often conceptualized it exclusively in terms of public participation in decision-making, and supported it by various liberal democratic values. However, if the predominant understanding of public engagement on—or, the role of the public in—geoengineering decision-making is indeed only grounded on liberal democratic values, then its normative relevance could be challenged by and in other ethical-political traditions that do not share those values. In this paper, I shall explore these questions from a Confucian perspective. I argue that the liberal democratic values invoked in support of the normative importance of public participation are, at least, foreign to Confucian political philosophy. This presents a prima facie challenge to view public participation ingeoengineering decision-making as a universal moral requirement, and invites us to reconsider the normative significance of this form of public engagement in Confucian societies. Yet, I contend that the role of the public remains normatively significant ingeoengineering governance and the ethics ofgeoengineering from a Confucian perspective. Drawing from recent work on Confucian political philosophy, I illustrate the potential normative foundation for public engagement ongeoengineering decision-making. (shrink)

Direct download(4 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   6 citations  

No categories

Export citation   Bookmark   1 citation  

Whilegeoengineering may counteract negative effects of anthropogenic climate change, it is clear that mostgeoengineering options could also have some harmful effects. Moreover, it is predicted that the benefits and harms ofgeoengineering will be distributed unevenly in different parts of the world and to future generations, which raises serious questions of justice. It has been suggested that a compensation scheme to redressgeoengineering harms is needed forgeoengineering to be ethically and politically acceptable. (...) Discussions of compensation forgeoengineering harms, however, sometimes presumegeoengineering has presented new and unique challenges to compensation that cannot be readily accommodated by existing compensation practices. The most explicit formulation of this view was recently presented by Toby Svoboda and Peter J. Irvine, who argued that two forms of uncertainty ingeoengineering — namely, ethical uncertainty and scientific uncertainty — make it immensely difficult to devise an ethically and politically satisfactory compensation scheme forgeoengineering harms. -/- In this paper, we argue against the view thatgeoengineering presents new and unique challenges relating to compensation. More specifically, we show that placing these challenges within the broader context of anthropogenic climate change reveals them to be less serious and less specific togeoengineering than some appear to believe. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark  

In this paper, I address the question of whether aerosolgeoengineering (AG) ought to be deployed as a response to climate change. First, I distinguish AG from emissions mitigation, adaptation, and othergeoengineering strategies. Second, I discuss advantages and disadvantages of AG, including its potential to result in substantial harm to some persons. Third, I critique three arguments against AG deployment, suggesting reasons why these arguments should be rejected. Fourth, I consider an argument that, in scenarios in which (...) all available climate change strategies would result in net harm to persons, we ought to adopt that response to climate change which would result in the least net harm. I suggest that under .. (shrink)

Direct download(7 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   9 citations  

Export citation   Bookmark  

Export citation   Bookmark  

Export citation   Bookmark  

ABSTRACT: There is general agreement amongst those involved in the normative discussion aboutgeoengineering that if we are to move forward with significant research, development, and certainly any future deployment, legitimate governance is a must. However, while we agree that the abstract concept of legitimacy ought to guidegeoengineering governance, agreement surrounding the appropriate conception of legitimacy has yet to emerge. Relying upon Allen Buchanan’s metacoordination view of institutional legitimacy, this paper puts forward a conception of legitimacy appropriate (...) forgeoengineering governance, outlining five normative criteria an institution ought to fulfill if it is to justifiably coordinate our action aroundgeoengineering. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   4 citations  

Two questions are central to the ethics ofgeoengineering. The justificatory question asks ‘Under what future conditions mightgeoengineering become justified?’, where the conditions to be considered include, for example, the threat to be confronted, the background circumstances, the governance mechanisms, individual protections, compensation provisions, and so on. The contextual question asks ‘What is the ethical context of the push towardgeoengineering, and what are its implications?’ Unfortunately, early discussions ofgeoengineering often marginalize both questions because (...) they tend to focus on arguments from emergency that illegitimately brush them aside. One sign of this is that some emergency arguments are ethically short-sighted, and morally schizophrenic. In this paper, I illustrate this problem by appeal to two abstract examples. Although both are extreme and idealized, even the imperfect analogies provide reasons for concern about our current predicament. Ethically serious discussion ofgeoengineering should confront such worries, rather than hide behind overly simplistic appeals to moral emergency. As Michael Stocker puts it in his seminal discussion of moral schizophrenia, “to refuse to do so bespeaks a malady of the spirit.” . (shrink)

Export citation   Bookmark   5 citations  

There is widespread agreement that ethical concerns are central to decision-making about, and governance of,geoengineering. This is especially true of the most prominent and paradigm example of climate engineering, the spraying of sulfate particles into the stratosphere in order to block incoming sunlight and so limit global warming ).Geoengineering ethics, likegeoengineering science, is still in its early, exploratory days. This chapter offers an introductory overview of the emerging discussion and some of the challenges moving (...) forward, taking SSI as its key example. It identifies a range of values relevant togeoengineering, exposes some misleading early framings, argues that questions of justification and context are both important, and summarizes the Tollgate principles forgeoengineering governance. One theme is that despite the initial agreement on the centrality of ethics, in practice there are profound risks that ethical considerations will be marginalized, both in the short-term as research is developed, and in the longer-run, in any deployment. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   4 citations  

Radical forms ofgeoengineering, such as stratospheric sulfate injection (SSI), raise serious concerns about justice and the plight of the most vulnerable. However, these are sometimes dismissed on the basis of a challenge: “What if, in the face of catastrophic impacts, the most vulnerable countries initiategeoengineering themselves, or beg the richer, more technically sophisticated countries to do it? Wouldn’tgeoengineering then be ethically permissible? Who could refuse them?” As a US tech billionaire put it, “Frankly, the (...) Maldives could say, ‘F--- you all—we want to stay alive’. Would you blame them? Wouldn’t any reasonable country do the same?” Such questions are intended to be rhetorical: it is assumed simply to be obvious that the appeals of the desperate would justify radicalgeoengineering. Moreover, the framing suggests that other nations would have strong moral reasons either to respect intervention by the desperate, or even to aid them by deploying themselves. Sometimes such arguments are also used to justify accelerating research ongeoengineering now. If the desperate might attemptgeoengineering, it is said, we should work out how best to do it, so as to assist them through advice. In general, the overriding thought is that the threat of catastrophe coupled with the plight of vulnerable populations provides most of the justification needed for the wider pursuit of ageoengineering agenda. Desperation becomes a trump card in the policy discourse. In this article, I argue that the desperation argument misses much of what is at stake, ethically speaking, ingeoengineering policy. I focus on two further questions. The more obvious—the justificatory question—asks “under what conditions wouldgeoengineering become justified?”, where the conditions to be considered would include, for example, the threat to be confronted, the governance mechanisms, the individual protections to be provided, the compensation provisions to be made, and so on. The less obvious question is the contextual question: “What is the ethical context within whichgeoengineering is likely to occur, and what difference does this make to our analysis of it?” (Gardiner 2013). In light of this distinction, I argue for two claims. First, on neither of the two most obvious interpretations of it does the desperation argument clearly justify the pursuit ofgeoengineering. Indeed, it may even count against such pursuit. Second, in any case, the context in which SSI is actually being pursued reveals more about the live threats and ethical import ofgeoengineering. For example, to push the most vulnerable to the point where they feel forced to accept pronounced subjugation to those who have made them desperate is a morally horrifying prospect which we have strong ethical reason to avoid. Such possibilities should not be concealed behind the superficial bravado of “f--- you all” and “what any reasonable country would do.” None of this implies that ethicalgeoengineering is impossible. However, it does suggest thatgeoengineering is morally complex in ways unappreciated by simple appeals to desperation. (shrink)

Export citation   Bookmark   12 citations  

Indigenous peoples are referenced at various times in communication, debates, and academic and policy discussions ongeoengineering. The discourses I have in mind f...

Direct download(4 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   4 citations  

Geoengineering as a technological intervention to avert the dangerous climate change has been on the table at least since 2006. The global outreach of the technology exercised in a non-encapsulated system, the concerns with unprecedented levels and scales of impact and the overarching interdisciplinarity of the project make thegeoengineering debate ethically quite relevant and complex. This paper explores the ethical desirability ofgeoengineering from an overall review of the existing literature on the ethics ofgeoengineering. (...) It identifies the relevant literature on the ethics ofgeoengineering by employing a standard methodology. Based on various framing of the major ethical arguments and their subsets, the results section presents the opportunities and challenges at stake ingeoengineering from an ethical point of view. The discussion section takes a keen interest in identifying the evolving dynamics of the debate, the grey areas of the debate, with underdeveloped arguments being brought to the foreground and in highlighting the arguments that are likely to emerge in the future as key contenders. It observes the semantic diversity and ethical ambiguity, the academic lop-sidedness of the debate, missing contextual setting, need for interdisciplinary approaches, public engagement, and region-specific assessment of ethical issues. Recommendations are made to provide a useful platform for the second generation ofgeoengineering ethicists to help advance the debate to more decisive domains with the required clarity and caution. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   9 citations  

A collection of original and innovative essays that compare the justice issues raised by climate engineering to the justice issues raised by competing approaches to solving the climate problem.

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   5 citations  

Ethics, Policy & Environment, Volume 15, Issue 2, Page 202-205, June 2012.

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   3 citations  

This paper aims to address the lack of critique of the linear model ingeoengineering governance discourse, and to illustrate different considerations for ageoengineering governance framework that is not based on a linear model of technology innovation. Finally, we set to explore a particular approach togeoengineering governance based on Peter-Paul Verbeek’s notion of ‘technology accompaniment’.

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark  

It is generally recognised that the potential positive and negative impacts ofgeoengineering will be distributed unevenly both geographically and temporally. The question of distributive justice ingeoengineering thus is one of the major ethical issues associated withgeoengineering. Currently, the question of distributive justice ingeoengineering is framed in terms of who gets what (potential) benefits and harms fromgeoengineering, i.e. it is about the distribution of the outcomes ofgeoengineering. In this paper, (...) I argue that the discussions on distributive justice ingeoengineering should not be outcome-based. Instead, it should be risk-based. I identify two problems for framing the question of distributive justice ingeoengineering in terms of the distribution of its outcomes, i.e. the ‘if and then’ syndrome and the limited applicability of distributive principles ingeoengineering policy, and suggest risk is a more proper object of distribution in the case ofgeoengineering. Following Hayenhjelm, I argue that the object of distribution in the case of fair distribution of risk should be (i) sources of risks and (ii) precautionary measures. I shall then demonstrate how it can be applied to the question of distributive justice ingeoengineering. Finally, I end this paper by exploring the possible responses to the question of distributive justice ingeoengineering by three major accounts of distributive justice, i.e. egalitarianism, prioritarianism, and sufficientarianism. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   1 citation  

The rapid rise in interest ingeoengineering the climate as a response to global warming presents a clear and significant challenge to environmental ethics. The paper articulates what I call the 'presumptive argument' againstgeoengineering from environmental ethics, a presumption strong enough to makegeoengineering almost 'unthinkable' from within that tradition. Two rationales for suspending that presumption are next considered. One of them is a 'lesser evil' argument, the other makes connections between the presumptive argument, ecofacism, and (...) the anthropocentrism/non-anthropocentrism debate. The discussion is designed to prompt reflection on how environmental ethicists should orient themselves to the rapidly movinggeoengineering debate and what they should think about the moral significance of the earth's large-scale biogeochemical processes compared to the moral significance of individuals, species, and ecosystems. (shrink)

Direct download(6 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   33 citations  

Although it could avoid some harmful effects of climate change, sulphate aerosolgeoengineering (SAG), or injecting sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere in order to reflect incoming solar radiation, threatens substantial harm to humans and non-humans. I argue that SAG is prima facie ethically problematic from anthropocentric, animal liberationist, and biocentric perspectives. This might be taken to suggest that ethical evaluations of SAG can rely on Bryan Norton's convergence hypothesis, which predicts that anthropocentrists and non-anthropocentrists will agree to implement the (...) same or similar environmental policies. However, there are potential scenarios in which anthropocentrists and non-anthropocentrists would seem to diverge on whether a particular SAG policy ought to be implemented. This suggests that the convergence hypothesis should not be relied on in ethical evaluation of SAG. Instead, ethicists should consider the merits and deficiencies of both non-anthropocentric perspectives and the ethical evaluations of SAG such perspectives afford. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   2 citations  

In the perspective of biocultural homogenization and the increasingly prominent use of technology, environmental ethics faces new challenges. Development policies, governance, and economic factors impose new ways of understanding and managing coexistence. Phenomena such as pandemics, global warming, migratory phenomena, the expansion of urban and rural areas, and the development of large-scale monocultures show us that human agency, resources, the environment, and surroundings are increasingly intertwined, both physically and metaphysically, in an increasingly encompassing organism where the dissociation between the local (...) and the global becomes difficult to achieve. With a wide range of actions and relationships, environmental psychology and ethics have the task of rethinking the relationship between cultural elements and the biosphere, in order to achieve a balance between sensibility, responsibility, and responsivity. In this article, I aim to illustrate that a biocultural ethical framework emphasizing socio-environmental justice, applied togeoengineering, not only promotes global socio-environmental sustainability but also recognizes the crucial significance of local ecosystems in climate regulation and biodiversity conservation. To do so, I will briefly present some theoretical elements related to the importance of environmental psychology in understanding the connection between individuals and the surrounding environment. Then, I will succinctly present the concept of the ”3Hs” and its implication on biocultural ethics, and subsequently integrate specific elements of biocultural ethics into the analysis ofgeoengineering ethics to illustrate the need for a perspective that takes this into account. Through this endeavor, I intend to emphasize the vital role of a holistic, multidimensional perspective that guides individual values and community policies towards sustainable practices, ensuring social cohesion and dialogue, respecting the coexistence of life forms, and protecting their habitats. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(4 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

The Royal Society's landmark report ongeoengineering is predicated on a particular account of the context and rationale for intentional manipulation of the climate system, and this ethical framework probably explains many of the Society's conclusions. Critical reflection on the report's values is useful for understanding disagreements within and aboutgeoengineering policy, and also for identifying questions for early ethical analysis. Topics discussed include the moral hazard argument, governance, the ethical status ofgeoengineering under different rationales, the (...) implications of understandinggeoengineering as a consequence of wider moral failure, and ethical resistance to invasive interventions in environmental systems. (shrink)

Direct download(8 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   25 citations  

This article brings a new perspective to the ethical debate ongeoengineering through stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), incorporating the emerging techno-moral change scholarship into the discussion surrounding sustainability. The techno-moral change approach can help us understand different ways in which technology might shape society. First, it helps highlight how values and norms are interrelated. Second, it shows that techno-moral change can happen even if the technology is in no way realized. Through the introduction of two techno-moral vignettes, two diametrically (...) opposed ways in which SAI forces us to rethink sustainability and our relationship with nature are suggested. SAI could lead to a situation of entrenchment, wherein sustainability as a norm is undermined, or transformation where the necessity of acting according to sustainability is highlighted. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   3 citations  

Many have argued that that it is morally wrong to benefit from an agent's culpable wronging of a third party. This thought has formed the basis of some arguments that agents can have duties to make up for wrongful acts by others that they could not have stopped, or that occurred before they were born. For example, it has been argued that those who benefited from slavery, colonialism and other shameful events in their nation's history should surrender those benefits, their (...) equivalent value, or provide other forms of redress. Some have also argued that it is morally wrong to benefit from unjust situations caused by third parties even where there is no culpable element. These ideas have potential to be a principle of redress for harms that are caused by the working of very complex systems, such as the global climate system.Geoengineering, the intentional manipulation of the global climate, is a new development in climate science and policy — and one which raises many normative challenges. This article focuses on one specific challenge. The global climate is very complex and there is a real possibility that the best available science will not be able to account for all the consequences of deploying ageoengineering technique. Therefore, any governance regime that allows deployment will have to consider how to organise compensation or redress for any adverse impacts that could not have been predicted at the time of deployment. This article proposes that, with some modification, the principle that agents should surrender benefits that have accrued to them from usinggeoengineering techniques, can be a good basis for such a scheme. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   14 citations