Re: [ISEE-L] [geo] Ethics of Geoengineering (anything new?)
37 views
Skip to first unread message
smg...@uw.edu
Apr 9, 2012, 5:18:39 AM4/9/12
to geoengineering
Dear Ken,
Like most of the others, I'm not much worried about whether or not
geoengineering is "fundamentally new" in some technical sense.
However, I would say that, much as we may love them, it is hard to
argue that Aristotle, Hume, Kant, et al., have "already considered"
the issues, if this is supposed to mean that they have *adequately
addressed* the relevant questions. In my view, climate change brings
together a large number of theoretical questions that we are not
currently well equipped to handle - in areas such as global justice,
intergenerational ethics, humanity's relationship to nature,
scientific uncertainty, contingent persons, etc. Some sign of this
comes with the difficulties faced by standard theories such as
economic CBA, utilitarianism, contractarianism, and so on. So, there
is lots of work to do.
In general, my view is that there is an exciting emerging literature
on these matters. The Montana bibliography is a very useful
resource. Some of my own position is outlined in my recent book, A
Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Challenge of Climate Change (Oxford,
2011), which includes a chapter on geoengineering. I've also written
on the values of the Royal Society report on geoengineering, on Dale
Jamieson's classic piece about whether climate change challenges our
ethical concepts (my 'Is No One Responsible for Global Environmental
Tragedy?'), and on whether Rawls has the theoretical resources to deal
with climate change. These papers (and others) are available at:
http://www.phil.washington.edu/POV/GardinerFormalPublicationList.htm
I'd also recommend Allen Thompson and Jeremy Bendik-Keymer's new MIT
collection on the ethics of adaptation (including material on
ecological restoration and on geoengineering).
Best wishes,
Steve
Stephen Gardiner
Ben Rabinowitz Endowed Professor of the Human Dimensions of the
Environment
University of Washington, Seattle
(Currently Visiting Fellow at the Smith School of Enterprise and the
Environment, Oxford University)
Like most of the others, I'm not much worried about whether or not
geoengineering is "fundamentally new" in some technical sense.
However, I would say that, much as we may love them, it is hard to
argue that Aristotle, Hume, Kant, et al., have "already considered"
the issues, if this is supposed to mean that they have *adequately
addressed* the relevant questions. In my view, climate change brings
together a large number of theoretical questions that we are not
currently well equipped to handle - in areas such as global justice,
intergenerational ethics, humanity's relationship to nature,
scientific uncertainty, contingent persons, etc. Some sign of this
comes with the difficulties faced by standard theories such as
economic CBA, utilitarianism, contractarianism, and so on. So, there
is lots of work to do.
In general, my view is that there is an exciting emerging literature
on these matters. The Montana bibliography is a very useful
resource. Some of my own position is outlined in my recent book, A
Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Challenge of Climate Change (Oxford,
2011), which includes a chapter on geoengineering. I've also written
on the values of the Royal Society report on geoengineering, on Dale
Jamieson's classic piece about whether climate change challenges our
ethical concepts (my 'Is No One Responsible for Global Environmental
Tragedy?'), and on whether Rawls has the theoretical resources to deal
with climate change. These papers (and others) are available at:
http://www.phil.washington.edu/POV/GardinerFormalPublicationList.htm
I'd also recommend Allen Thompson and Jeremy Bendik-Keymer's new MIT
collection on the ethics of adaptation (including material on
ecological restoration and on geoengineering).
Best wishes,
Steve
Stephen Gardiner
Ben Rabinowitz Endowed Professor of the Human Dimensions of the
Environment
University of Washington, Seattle
(Currently Visiting Fellow at the Smith School of Enterprise and the
Environment, Oxford University)
Ken Caldeira
Apr 9, 2012, 7:40:46 AM4/9/12
to smg...@uw.edu, geoengineering
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.
In my conception, philosophers of ethics develop theory and we all, when faced with moral problems, attempt to apply this theory in our moral reasoning.
I drew the analogy with mathematics, where mathematicians develop theory and we all apply this theory when buying groceries.
I am apparently the only person in this group that thinks this distinction between development and application of moral theory is worth maintaining.
When I said that I saw nothing in geoengineering for moral philosophy, I meant that in the sense that I also see nothing in buying groceries for mathematicians (although I do not doubt that some mathematician will be inspired at the checkout line to develop new mathematical theory).
I do believe that there is much in moral reasoning as developed by philosophers over the ages that can be applied to the moral problems posed by geoengineering.
Call me obtuse, but nothing in this discussion has caused me to reassess the view I started out with: To me, a moral philosopher of geoengineering is like a mathematician of the grocery checkout line.
_______________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
Currently visiting Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS)
In my conception, philosophers of ethics develop theory and we all, when faced with moral problems, attempt to apply this theory in our moral reasoning.
I drew the analogy with mathematics, where mathematicians develop theory and we all apply this theory when buying groceries.
I am apparently the only person in this group that thinks this distinction between development and application of moral theory is worth maintaining.
When I said that I saw nothing in geoengineering for moral philosophy, I meant that in the sense that I also see nothing in buying groceries for mathematicians (although I do not doubt that some mathematician will be inspired at the checkout line to develop new mathematical theory).
I do believe that there is much in moral reasoning as developed by philosophers over the ages that can be applied to the moral problems posed by geoengineering.
Call me obtuse, but nothing in this discussion has caused me to reassess the view I started out with: To me, a moral philosopher of geoengineering is like a mathematician of the grocery checkout line.
_______________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
Currently visiting Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS)
and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Resarch (PIK) in Potsdam, Germany.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Stephen Gardiner
Apr 9, 2012, 9:24:03 AM4/9/12
to geoengineering
Dear Ken,
I'm pleased that you agree that at least the "applied" work is
helpful. However, I'm not sure why you are so attached to the claim
that there is nothing here of more theoretical interest.
(1) There is a distinction between theoretical and applied/practical
ethics in the discipline of philosophy, and applied/practical ethics
is a legitimate philosophical enterprise. However, I'm not
enthusiastic about that distinction in general, and especially in this
case. Partly this is because I'm not comfortable with the vision of
the rest of us merely "applying" the works of Aristotle, Hume, etc.,
as if their works were simply hammers to pick out of our back pockets
to hit things with. There is much more going on than that. (For
example, even at the less radical end, one mainstream view is John
Rawls' "reflective equilibrium" approach, where theory and practice
are mutually informing, so that theory has sometimes to be adjusted in
light of the cases. So, sometimes a new problem might cause us to
revise or throw out some theory that previously seemed to be working
well. Of course, this happens in physical science too.)
(2) With all due respect, I'm not sure why you assume that the major
figures of the past have given us all the theory we need to do the
job. There is a substantial academic literature on this (for and
against, but mainly against), both with respect to climate ethics in
particular, and environmental ethics/environmental political theory
much more generally. There are different disputes in different areas
(some of which I named in my earlier email: e.g., global justice,
without confronting the arguments.
(3) One thing that does seem clear to me is that the versions of the
dominant theories prominent in the public realm - e.g., simple cost-
benefit analysis, standard contract theories, the view that the value
of nature is a matter of mere preference akin to a taste for
gorgonzola - aren't up to it. I'm not convinced that the more
sophisticated theoretical versions available are either, but this is
only going to be sorted out through a serious and thorough engagement
with those theories and the issues. I think that is partly what the
Montana bibliography is trying to promote.
In short, as a moral and political philosopher, I'm not very happy
about going to the climate checkout armed only with our current
ethical mathematics. Maybe it is true in principle that my old abacus
would be up to the job if I really knew how to apply it. But that is
a big "maybe", and even if it is true, I'm not sure that I know how,
or can work it out quickly enough. I'm especially nervous about these
new things called "derivatives" that my nephew keeps wanting to shove
into the basket, and which no one seems to really understand yet. I'm
told by the enthusiasts that they might protect me against escalating
risk, but by others that they might make things much worse. I've also
noticed that the people who will ultimately decide what they mean are
the same ones who have done nothing so far to stop the risks
escalating, and that this will give them unprecedented power over
grocery buying and everything else. I'm not sure that we should get
into the "derivatives" business at all; if we do get into it, I'm
pretty sure that there's a lot at stake. I'm also worried that an
important part of it has nothing to do with buying groceries.
Best wishes,
Steve
Stephen Gardiner
Ben Rabinowitz Endowed Professor of the Human Dimensions of the
Environment
University of Washington, Seattle
(Currently Visiting Fellow at the Smith School of Enterprise and the
Environment, Oxford University)
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering
+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
I'm pleased that you agree that at least the "applied" work is
helpful. However, I'm not sure why you are so attached to the claim
that there is nothing here of more theoretical interest.
(1) There is a distinction between theoretical and applied/practical
ethics in the discipline of philosophy, and applied/practical ethics
is a legitimate philosophical enterprise. However, I'm not
enthusiastic about that distinction in general, and especially in this
case. Partly this is because I'm not comfortable with the vision of
the rest of us merely "applying" the works of Aristotle, Hume, etc.,
as if their works were simply hammers to pick out of our back pockets
to hit things with. There is much more going on than that. (For
example, even at the less radical end, one mainstream view is John
Rawls' "reflective equilibrium" approach, where theory and practice
are mutually informing, so that theory has sometimes to be adjusted in
light of the cases. So, sometimes a new problem might cause us to
revise or throw out some theory that previously seemed to be working
well. Of course, this happens in physical science too.)
(2) With all due respect, I'm not sure why you assume that the major
figures of the past have given us all the theory we need to do the
job. There is a substantial academic literature on this (for and
against, but mainly against), both with respect to climate ethics in
particular, and environmental ethics/environmental political theory
much more generally. There are different disputes in different areas
(some of which I named in my earlier email: e.g., global justice,
intergenerational ethics, humanity's relationship to nature,
scientific uncertainty), but I can't see that we'll get anywhere
without confronting the arguments.
(3) One thing that does seem clear to me is that the versions of the
dominant theories prominent in the public realm - e.g., simple cost-
benefit analysis, standard contract theories, the view that the value
of nature is a matter of mere preference akin to a taste for
gorgonzola - aren't up to it. I'm not convinced that the more
sophisticated theoretical versions available are either, but this is
only going to be sorted out through a serious and thorough engagement
with those theories and the issues. I think that is partly what the
Montana bibliography is trying to promote.
In short, as a moral and political philosopher, I'm not very happy
about going to the climate checkout armed only with our current
ethical mathematics. Maybe it is true in principle that my old abacus
would be up to the job if I really knew how to apply it. But that is
a big "maybe", and even if it is true, I'm not sure that I know how,
or can work it out quickly enough. I'm especially nervous about these
new things called "derivatives" that my nephew keeps wanting to shove
into the basket, and which no one seems to really understand yet. I'm
told by the enthusiasts that they might protect me against escalating
risk, but by others that they might make things much worse. I've also
noticed that the people who will ultimately decide what they mean are
the same ones who have done nothing so far to stop the risks
escalating, and that this will give them unprecedented power over
grocery buying and everything else. I'm not sure that we should get
into the "derivatives" business at all; if we do get into it, I'm
pretty sure that there's a lot at stake. I'm also worried that an
important part of it has nothing to do with buying groceries.
Best wishes,
Steve
Stephen Gardiner
Ben Rabinowitz Endowed Professor of the Human Dimensions of the
Environment
University of Washington, Seattle
(Currently Visiting Fellow at the Smith School of Enterprise and the
Environment, Oxford University)
+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
David Mitchell
Apr 9, 2012, 10:24:37 AM4/9/12
to smg...@uw.edu, geoengineering, Bhagirath Behera, Clive Hamilton
Although a scientist, I'd like to see more work being done along the lines Prof. Steve Gardiner has mentioned. One "philosopher" who has addressed the geo-engineering issue considerably is Clive Hamilton from the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Canberra, Australia.; here is one example of his work: http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/media/ethical_foundations_of_climate_engineering.pdf .
Some of Clive's comments echo the following statement from Albert Einstein: "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."
At the Planet Under Pressure Conference two weeks ago, there was a session on Going Beyond the Current Economic Paradigm, and I have attached a powerpoint presentation from that session (after receiving permission from its author, Bhagirath Behera, to post to this group). The presentation addresses the climate debacle in general and not GE per se. It is not about new insights but perhaps a reminder of old insights and speaks to the "common core" that we all share (that gives meaning to the phase "moral compass").
Enjoy,
David Mitchell
Associate Research Professor
Desert Research Institute
Division of Atmospheric Sciences
2215 Raggio Parkway
Reno, Nevada, USA
Desert Research Institute
Division of Atmospheric Sciences
2215 Raggio Parkway
Reno, Nevada, USA
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.For more options,
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages