Ethical differences between CDR and SRM

[David Morrow]

In an earlier thread, Ron had asked about ethicists' views on the differences between CDR and SRM. I don't know of any detailed treatment of the topic. I'd be grateful if anyone could point one out. For the reasons I'll explain below, ethicists have focused most of their attention on SRM or on specific methods of CDR, such as ocean fertilization. But I figured I'd take a stab at articulating what I see as the main differences between the ethics of CDR and the ethics of SRM.

The following comments apply to SRM and CDR generally. Not all of the comments apply to all SRM or CDR technologies. I'll say a bit about that at the end.

In general, SRM is much more ethically problematic than CDR. This is for four main reasons, in descending order of importance:

1. SRM involves larger, more geographically dispersed risks than CDR does. The magnitude of the risk matters because any decision to test or deploy SRM is unlikely to be unanimous, and the ethical issues involved in imposing risks on others increase with the magnitude of the risk. The geographical scope of the risk matters because imposing risks across borders raises questions of global political legitimacy that are not well understood. That is, we know much more about how such decisions ought to be settled within a country than across many countries. My sense is that some key risks are less well understood for SRM, too, which makes it harder to make good decisions.

2. CDR would (in principle) enable us to "clean up the mess we're making," while SRM would pass the problem on to future generations while keeping its worst effects at bay. Thus, SRM raises special concerns about intergenerational justice that CDR might not. (If, however, current generations built the infrastructure for CDR, pumped a lot of GHGs into the atmosphere, and then left future generations to pay the costs of capturing and sequestering the carbon, that would raise problems of intergenerational justice.)

3. SRM represents a greater intervention into natural systems than CDR does. A high-GHG world cooled by SRM is a much more heavily "managed" world than one that in which warming has been slowed or reversed by CDR. Some ethicists -- especially environmental philosophers -- think that significant intervention in natural processes is "pro tanto wrong" (roughly, "wrong to that extent"), meaning that being a significant intervention is a "wrong-making feature" of an act. This is *not* to say that all significant intervention is "wrong, all things considered." Wrong-making features can often be offset by other features of the act. To take a non-environmental example, many people would say that "being a lie" is a wrong-making feature of an act, but that lying to save an innocent person's life would be justified. To take an environmental example, large-scale agriculture represents a very significant intervention into natural systems, but it is justified (in some form) by the need to feed large numbers of people. Since SRM is a more significant intervention than (most forms of) CDR, it is ethically more problematic than (most forms of) CDR.

4. SRM is more susceptible to charges of hubris than CDR is. Sometimes this is expressed in terms of "playing God." Roughly, the idea is that believing we can manage Earth's climate through SRM requires greater confidence in our knowledge and technical abilities than does believing that we can capture and sequester carbon. Thus, it's thought that someone who claims that we can pull off SRM without bad side effects is more open to charges of overestimating our abilities than is someone who merely claims we can pull off CDR.

The main overlap between SRM and CDR, ethically speaking, concerns the so-called "moral hazard" problem. This is the worry that developing SRM and/or CDR will cause the world to cut back their mitigation efforts. Some people think this is a bigger problem than others do, but I'd say it's at least as big a problem for CDR as it is for SRM. There are some other objections that apply to both SRM and CDR, but I don't think they're as important as the issues above.

Finally, particular CDR technologies may share some of the ethical problems of SRM. Ocean fertilization comes to mind as posing large, poorly understood, and geographically dispersed risks. But the ethical problems with, e.g., ocean fertilization have to do with the mechanism by which it aims to capture and sequester carbon, not with the fact that it is a form of CDR per se.

I hope the other ethicists lurking on the list will chime in on this topic. I'm also interested to hear from everyone else on the list. I don't think the ethics of CDR are all that well explored, so I expect we'll learn some new things from the discussion.

David

[Benjamin Hale]

Well, for what it’s worth, here are two pieces of mine that address concerns that David mentions below: both the labelling problem – whether there is a morally relevant distinction between CDR and SRM – and the moral hazard problem.

 

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/hale/Remediation%20vs%20Steering%20--%20Final%20Published%20Version.pdf

 

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/hale/Hale%20--%20Geoengineering%20and%20Moral%20Hazards%20--%20Published%20version_no_cover.pdf

 

   Benjamin Hale

   Associate 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

   Center for Science and Technology Policy Research

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Michael Hayes]

 

David and Ben et. al.,

David, in general, I think you nailed it. I'll offer a few minor suggestions.

"1. SRM involves larger, more geographically dispersed risks than CDR does. The magnitude of the risk matters because any decision to test or deploy SRM is unlikely to be unanimous, and the ethical issues involved in imposing risks on others increase with the magnitude of the risk. The geographical scope of the risk matters because imposing risks across borders raises questions of global political legitimacy that are not well understood. That is, we know much more about how such decisions ought to be settled within a country than across many countries. My sense is that some key risks are less well understood for SRM, too, which makes it harder to make good decisions."

(MLH) It may be important to remember that Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB), an important SRM strategy, does not necessarily have a trans boarder component. It does, however, open up the issue of "The Haves v. The Have Nots" being able to mitigate and adapt to a warmer climate, yet that is more of an unsubstantial assumption. Also, MCB is extremely short waved (short lasting) and can be deployed in a highly specific region for a range of problems. Using MCB to mitigate Arctic warming (ie. potential Arctic Methane Tipping Point) is a use significantly different than mitigating the 'average planetary temperature'. One is regional, the other global. 

Where as much of the effects of MCB can be modeled, Stratospheric Sulfuric acid Injection (SSI) becomes extremely difficult to model below the first level effects. Consider, sulfuric acid is the main cloud condensate nuclei for Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC), the strongest driver of polar warming. An artificial increase in PSCs, through SSI use, would involve increasing sea levels through accelerated ice melt, flooding vast areas of tundra which can releasing vast amounts of methane from shallow methane hydrates etc. Or not.

Once the SSI/PSC issue is thoroughly modeled, the issue of what, if any, effects of SSI will have on the Ozone Layer needs close examination. There are other atmospheric chemical reactions which have yet to be reviewed (in public forums) even at a topical level. One example is the importance of H2O UV weathering within the tropopause. When water is weathered by strong UV within the tropopause it breaks down into oxyhydrogen/hydrogen and cools the tropopause. How will SSI effect this natural cooling mechanism? Will we be trading one for the other; simply negating a free/natural atmospheric cooler; increasing the natural cooling effect or none of the prior?

MCB does not have any of the above issues facing it.

The take away is that the use of the term 'SRM' is being used improperly and distictions should be made based upon the actual technology being covered. A 'horse' may be a 'farm', 'race' or 'saw' variaty. And, we should not get bogged down in theoretical paradoxes until the science or science fiction issues are sorted out.

"2. CDR would (in principle) enable us to "clean up the mess we're making," while SRM would pass the problem on to future generations while keeping its worst effects at bay. Thus, SRM raises special concerns about intergenerational justice that CDR might not. (If, however, current generations built the infrastructure for CDR, pumped a lot of GHGs into the atmosphere, and then left future generations to pay the costs of capturing and sequestering the carbon, that would raise problems of intergenerational justice.)"

(MLH) With the above take away thought on SRM in mind, you are generally correct on the intergenerational justice issue. The most used counter to that concern is the potential for sudden catastrophic climate change. If we are blind sided by a game ender like an Arctic Methane Tipping Point or Extreme/Prolonged El Nino Event, there will be a significant reduction in the importance of intergenerational justice as there may be no future generations. That view could or could not be hyperbolic. I personally see the value of preparing for the worst case scenario, we owe that much to the future population.

If we look at the potential of developing biofuels (a negative carbon fuel) and the deployment of biofuel cultivation on a vast scale as a CDR strategy, this transforms the entire matrix of the metaethical debate concerning CDR, GE, the moral hazard, governance and sustainable global energy production/use. Under this scenario, the more biofuel that is produced/used, the greater reduction of the atmospheric/oceanic CO2 store occurs.

In view of the broad spectrum of benefits a global biofuel strategy offers, it might be considered un-ethical to our future generations if we do not implement it at the earliest opportunity. This view can be supported by the legal concept known as 'reasonible knowability'. In short, if we know we can protect the future generation from the undue risk of continued FF use, we are morally, ethically and (theoretically) legally required to do so (if such a omnipotent court existed).

The one legal concept which may prove to be pivotal in the national/international courts is that of 'reasonably scientifically knowable' or, more precisely, the Knowability Principle and Fitch's Paradox of Knowability:

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Phylosophy:

Fitch's Paradox of Knowability

First published Mon Oct 7, 2002; substantive revision Wed Jul 1, 2009

The paradox of knowability is a logical result suggesting that, necessarily, if all truths are knowable in principle then all truths are in fact known. The contrapositive of the result says, necessarily, if in fact there is an unknown truth, then there is a truth that couldn't possibly be known. More specifically, if p is a truth that is never known then it is unknowable that p is a truth that is never known. The proof has been used to argue against versions of anti-realism committed to the thesis that all truths are knowable. For clearly there are unknown truths; individually and collectively we are non-omniscient. So, by the main result, it is false that all truths are knowable. The result has also been used to draw more general lessons about the limits of human knowledge. Still others have taken the proof to be fallacious, since it collapses an apparently moderate brand of anti-realism into an obviously implausible and naive idealism.

The take away thought on the intergenerational justice issue is that we may want to look beyond the current technical frame work of SSI v. CDR and explore stratigies that can negate the paradoxes which you are detailing. It is in everyones' benifit to view our options through the eys of a future historian not the curent best selling author.  

"3. SRM represents a greater intervention into natural systems than CDR does. A high-GHG world cooled by SRM is a much more heavily "managed" world than one that in which warming has been slowed or reversed by CDR. Some ethicists -- especially environmental philosophers -- think that significant intervention in natural processes is "pro tanto wrong" (roughly, "wrong to that extent"), meaning that being a significant intervention is a "wrong-making feature" of an act. This is *not* to say that all significant intervention is "wrong, all things considered." Wrong-making features can often be offset by other features of the act. To take a non-environmental example, many people would say that "being a lie" is a wrong-making feature of an act, but that lying to save an innocent person's life would be justified. To take an environmental example, large-scale agriculture represents a very significant intervention into natural systems, but it is justified (in some form) by the need to feed large numbers of people. Since SRM is a more significant intervention than (most forms of) CDR, it is ethically more problematic than (most forms of) CDR."

(MLH) To address the view of "Some ethicists -- especially environmental philosophers -- think that significant intervention in natural processes is "pro tanto wrong" (roughly, "wrong to that extent"), meaning that being a significant intervention is a "wrong-making feature" of an act."; That view seems to be premised upon the view that there has been.....no..... previous intervention. Using CPR on a healthy person would be pro tanto wrong. Our current planetary ecological state can be reasonably viewed as less than virgin, if not ICU bound. Geoengineering is most properly viewed as 'emergancy intervention'. The large scale global warming mitigation and adaptation concepts which can be deployed at a sub-GE scale/non-emergancy level should be viewed and governed under a less than 'emergancy GE' governance protocol.

Unfortunately, most media and a significant number of scientific views take a black or white snapshot of the available options with little regards to what are extremely important details. When the details are brought into focus, degrees of appropriateness begin to emerge, as your industrial agriculture example illustrates. Ethics is largely concerned with degrees of right and wrong, not absolutes. The overall issue of large scale mitigation and adaptation to global warming offers up a blinding array of relitive rights v. wrongs which can possibly be reduced to one core question and a simply stated strategy.

Is the continued use of FFs, on a global scale, scientifically, morally or ethically supportable? If not, ending the FF era, should be the prime objective. The SRM v. CDR concern is a secondary issue. Any large scale mitigation and adaptation strategy which can support the primary objective (replacing FFs) should be given priority.

"4. SRM is more susceptible to charges of hubris than CDR is. Sometimes this is expressed in terms of "playing God." Roughly, the idea is that believing we can manage Earth's climate through SRM requires greater confidence in our knowledge and technical abilities than does believing that we can capture and sequester carbon. Thus, it's thought that someone who claims that we can pull off SRM without bad side effects is more open to charges of overestimating our abilities than is someone who merely claims we can pull off CDR."

(MLH) True. If the concept of SSI were to be introduced today under todays' level of scientific, public and policy scrutiny, it would not make it to the table (IMHO). Yet, MCB under the same virgin view, would be moved much closer to the center of the table. And, marine biomass based CDR/Biofuels would be side by side with MCB (IMHO).

"The main overlap between SRM and CDR, ethically speaking, concerns the so-called "moral hazard" problem. This is the worry that developing SRM and/or CDR will cause the world to cut back their mitigation efforts. Some people think this is a bigger problem than others do, but I'd say it's at least as big a problem for CDR as it is for SRM. There are some other objections that apply to both SRM and CDR, but I don't think they're as important as the issues above."

(MLH)The most logical way to ethically negate the moral hazard of global warming mitigation and adaptation is to address the core FF issue through open access to marine biofuel production. I'm preparing a draft paper on the subject, if you are interested. Its' titled (not surprisingly) Ethically Negating the Moral Hazard of Global Warming Mitigation and Adaptation: The Large Scale Mariculture Option.

"Finally, particular CDR technologies may share some of the ethical problems of SRM. Ocean fertilization comes to mind as posing large, poorly understood, and geographically dispersed risks. But the ethical problems with, e.g., ocean fertilization have to do with the mechanism by which it aims to capture and sequester carbon, not with the fact that it is a form of CDR per se."

(MLH) Ocean fertilizations' primary ethical issue seems to be the remarkable amount of waste that the method represents. The biomass can be and should be put to multiple beneficial uses. This requires the use of photobioreactors as pioneered by Dr Trent in the NASA sponsored OMEGA project. The above mentioned draft is an extension of Dr. Trent's (and others) work. The oceans are the primary life support means on this planet and, with due consideration and thought, offers us our best hope for dealing with the damage caused by FFs, replacing FFs and for providing ample renewable resources to our future generations.

Ben, your work on the moral hazard issue is the most extensive I've found to date. I agree with each point you make. The premise on which the arguments are based, however, are mutable. The use of marine biomass derived biofuel (a carbon negative fuel) as a form of CDR and FF replacement is an example of that mutability. In that scenario, as mentioned above, the more fuel produced/consumed, the lower the CO2 levels become. In turn, it can be suggested that.....not.....increasing fuel consumption is the moral 'wrong'.

I'm still reading your work and look forward to any further input you can offer.

Best regards,

Michael

[Rosemary Jones]

Hi.

There cannot be a problem with either of the following SRM strategies, ethical or otherwise, and as a necessary addition to the equally essential transition to zero carbon technologies.

1. Ensuring all road and runway services are balanced pale and dark, so at least the amount of radiation reflected back from the paler surfaces is equal to the amount entrenched in the darker ones.

2. Spraying an area of ice and snow bereft rock equal to that lost in the last 50 years with chalk based solar reflective paint.

The reason why there cannot be an ethical or other sort of problem with either of these strategies is that the first is a return to earlier SR normality, and the second is a replication of SR conditions as they used to be before the chaos got going. 

All that we need is a UN Climate Action Program to organize the spraying, payment from everyone wealthy enough to the GCF, and concomitant reforestation to provide the shade there used to be, and employing the poorest people because that's essential in order to get the work done, and the ethical cost of solving the climate problem.

Rosemary Jones.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear David—Very interesting effort to summarize the ethical aspects. The problem I have with the analysis is that it seems to me to totally leave out the adverse consequences of global warming that would be alleviated. That is, the whole intent of geoengineering is to reduce risks from CO2-induced changes in climate, and your analysis seems to be commenting on SRM, in particular, in terms of just doing it without the offsetting benefit, as if it were being proposed back in the 1950s when there were ideas of melting the Arctic ice to get at the region’s resources. The notion now is to, considering the gradual offsetting approach, to keep the climate about as it is or recently was (thus avoiding major losses of biodiversity, ice sheets, etc.) and so, if mitigation were pursued actively to keep us under, say 2.5-3 C, would be used to keep us at -.5 to 1 C above preindustrial (so much less SRM needed as compared to that to reverse a full doubling of CO2) and the idea would be to continue to phase up mitigation and CDR so one could phase out SRM over time, so there would be an exit strategy.

I would also like to offer a different perspective on this issue of uncertainties about SRM that is raised, Clive Hamilton, for example making a case of it. If we have enough confidence in the models and our understanding of the physics (and ecology, etc.) to be using our projections of the climate warming 4 C or so (hence, well into the range where models have not been tested and where the world has not been for tens of millions of years) to justify telling the world that it must get quickly get off of the fossil fuel energy system that provides 80+% of the world’s energy--and I am on the side that is convinced of that, then I just do not understand how it can be argued that the uncertainties of SRM, using techniques that have a natural analog we can learn from, aimed at keeping the climate about as it is now (so in the range models have been tested on), can be so great that we should not consider the approach. I do not disagree that there is much to learn and that there are issues of governance and ethics involved, but it seems to me that arguing that the uncertainties in the modeling is too large just plays into the hands of the deniers on model uncertainties. My view is that we should actually be evincing confidence in the model abilities to simulate the major aspects of what would result from SRM (and CDR) and that what the model results show is that there are limits in how well GHG-induced climate change can be offset (I think these limits can likely be moderated by some clever thinking about how to do SRM) and that there are complex issues and implications of such a course (and the most complex of the governance issues may well be how to maintain the SRM effort when the public has not had to actually experience the adverse impacts that are being offset). I just think the framing to date is well off the mark.

Best, Mike MacCracken

[David Morrow]

Mike, Michael, Greg, and list:

Thanks for your input. I guess I should emphasize that I was not attempting a complete analysis of the ethics of SRM or the ethics of CDR. In particular, I was not trying to address questions about whether SRM and/or CDR are or could be justified or even morally required. That's why I didn't compare the downsides of geoengineering to the very real downsides of inadequate mitigation. Some ethicists and activists leap from claims about geoengineering's downsides to the conclusion that we should not pursue geoengineering. Please don't take me to be doing that. My goal was simply to point out the differences and similarities in the ethical problems that would arise were we to pursue SRM and those that would arise were we to pursue CDR.

A few replies/queries about specific points that people raised:

Ben posted links to two papers. I highly recommend both of them. I should have mentioned the first one as a general discussion of ethical differences between SRM and CDR. (Sorry, Ben, for not thinking of it!)

Michael claimed that MCB would have far fewer transborder effects than SSI. His example of Arctic cooling, though, suggests that there would still be important transborder effects (e.g., throughout the Arctic Circle), but that they would be confined to fewer countries than with global SSI. That does make the problem easier, and much closer to problems we've tackled before, but it doesn't eliminate it. Also, I seem to recall reading about modeling studies that found surprising (to me) long-distance effects -- something like spraying in the north Pacific causing changes in a range of different places. Am I to understand that MCB could be targeted quite narrowly so as to avoid involving more than a few countries at a time?

Michael suggested that the environmental philosophers' argument about intervention assumes that "there has been.....no.....previous intervention." I hear this response a lot, but I think it's misguided. No one is assuming that there's been no previous intervention. The argument is not "let's not despoil wilderness with SRM." *That* argument would be open to the reply that the "wilderness" is already despoiled. To oversimplify, the idea is that intervening *further* in an already-despoiled system is worse than "undoing" the original intervention. Christopher Preston (http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/info%20pages/preston.htm) has done the best work on this that I know of. (Who else's work am I missing on that point?)

Rosemary: Interesting proposals. I would note that it would important for such projects to be documented in some centralized way. If the world were to pursue MCB or SSI, they would presumably want to know how the Earth's albedo has/would change because of such projects. But that's a fairly minor governance point.

Mike offered an interesting argument against those who emphasize the uncertainties involved in SRM. For my part, at least, I was focused more on the risks that show up in the models, rather than the Rumsfeldian uncertainty that seems to trouble people like Hamilton. When I referred to "some key risks [that] are less understood for SRM," I had in mind things like the uncertainty in estimates of SRM's effects on precipitation.

Finally, some people raised issues (e.g., about the need to "arm the future" with geoengineering technology) that I'll address in a separate post in the next few days, drawing on Stephen Gardiner's and Gregor Betz's work on those issues.

David

On Sunday, January 26, 2014 5:08:26 PM UTC-6, Mike MacCracken wrote:

Dear David—Very interesting effort to summarize the ethical aspects. The problem I have with the analysis is that it seems to me to totally leave out the adverse consequences of global warming that would be alleviated. That is, the whole intent of geoengineering is to reduce risks from CO2-induced changes in climate, and your analysis seems to be commenting on SRM, in particular, in terms of just doing it without the offsetting benefit, as if it were being proposed back in the 1950s when there were ideas of melting the Arctic ice to get at the region’s resources. The notion now is to, considering the gradual offsetting approach, to keep the climate about as it is or recently was (thus avoiding major losses of biodiversity, ice sheets, etc.) and so, if mitigation were pursued actively to keep us under, say 2.5-3 C, would be used to keep us at -.5 to 1 C above preindustrial (so much less SRM needed as compared to that to reverse a full doubling of CO2) and the idea would be to continue to phase up mitigation and CDR so one could phase out SRM over time, so there would be an exit strategy.

I would also like to offer a different perspective on this issue of uncertainties about SRM that is raised, Clive Hamilton, for example making a case of it. If we have enough confidence in the models and our understanding of the physics (and ecology, etc.) to be using our projections of the climate warming 4 C or so (hence, well into the range where models have not been tested and where the world has not been for tens of millions of years) to justify telling the world that it must get quickly get off of the fossil fuel energy system that provides 80+% of the world’s energy--and I am on the side that is convinced of that, then I just do not understand how it can be argued that the uncertainties of SRM, using techniques that have a natural analog we can learn from, aimed at keeping the climate about as it is now (so in the range models have been tested on), can be so great that we should not consider the approach. I do not disagree that there is much to learn and that there are issues of governance and ethics involved, but it seems to me that arguing that the uncertainties in the modeling is too large just plays into the hands of the deniers on model uncertainties. My view is that we should actually be evincing confidence in the model abilities to simulate the major aspects of what would result from SRM (and CDR) and that what the model results show is that there are limits in how well GHG-induced climate change can be offset (I think these limits can likely be moderated by some clever thinking about how to do SRM) and that there are complex issues and implications of such a course (and the most complex of the governance issues may well be how to maintain the SRM effort when the public has not had to actually experience the adverse impacts that are being offset). I just think the framing to date is well off the mark.

Best, Mike MacCracken

On 1/26/14 12:47 AM, "Rosemary Jones" wrote:

[Michael Hayes]

David et. al.,

Dealiing with this broad scope of issues in this type of 'speed debating' is less than optimal for all. I would like to offer, however, a few thoughts. 

"Michael claimed that MCB would have far fewer trans border effects than SSI. His example of Arctic cooling, though, suggests that there would still be important trans border effects (e.g., throughout the Arctic Circle), but that they would be confined to fewer countries than with global SSI. That does make the problem easier, and much closer to problems we've tackled before, but it doesn't eliminate it." (By definition, all GE concepts effect the global ecology. Limiting trans boarder complications is best made possible through CDR yet MCB can be deployed in a way which greatly limits trans boarder complications. I mentioned the Arctic as an example yet the use of any oceanic basin would be effective. Here is the original peer reviewed paper on MCB.) "Also, I seem to recall reading about modeling studies that found surprising (to me) long-distance effects -- something like spraying in the north Pacific causing changes in a range of different places. Am I to understand that MCB could be targeted quite narrowly so as to avoid involving more than a few countries at a time?" (If you can find the study on long range effects of MCB, I'd appreciate a link. To the best of my knowledge, MCB can be highly focused and even combined with Ship Tracks produced specifically for use with MCB. Far off shore regions of the oceans have a low amount of cloud condensate nuclei (CCN) available for cloud formation. Ship exhaust does provide the CCN and using carbon negitive biofuel would be the best practice for that effort. Cooling of the ocean surface, within the convergance zones, would be a direct way to reduce the serverity of super storms and extream El Ninos, as well as, provide for general SRM.)

"Michael suggested that the environmental philosophers' argument about intervention assumes that "there has been.....no.....previous intervention." I hear this response a lot, but I think it's misguided. No one is assuming that there's been no previous intervention. The argument is not "let's not despoil wilderness with SRM." *That* argument would be open to the reply that the "wilderness" is already despoiled. To oversimplify, the idea is that intervening *further* in an already-despoiled system is worse than "undoing" the original intervention." (Thank you for the clarification. However, I'm still not clear on what may be considered as "undoing the original intervention"? That would seem to require CDR and replacing FFs and providing some degree of SRM through MCB to help reduce the worst of the storms until the 'origional state' is achieved. If GE is unacceptible, how would you propose we 'undo' the origional intervention?)

 

Christopher Preston (http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/info%20pages/preston.htm) has done the best work on this that I know of. (Who else's work am I missing on that point?) Have you read Wil Burns' book: Climate Change GeoengineeringPhilosophical Perspectives, Legal Issues, and Governance Frameworks

"Rosemary: Interesting proposals. I would note that it would important for such projects to be documented in some centralized way. If the world were to pursue MCB or SSI, they would presumably want to know how the Earth's albedo has/would change because of such projects. But that's a fairly minor governance point." (Rosemary brings up what I believe is referred to as soft GE (passive SRM). I would caution against using that amount of chemicals. However, the idea of passive SRM can play a large role and I've used it in the LSM option.)

"Mike offered an interesting argument against those who emphasize the uncertainties involved in SRM. For my part, at least, I was focused more on the risks that show up in the models, rather than the Rumsfeldian uncertainty that seems to trouble people like Hamilton. When I referred to "some key risks [that] are less understood for SRM," I had in mind things like the uncertainty in estimates of SRM's effects on precipitation." (Which form of SRM, passive, MCB or SSI? I believe Mike is correct in advocating keeping an open and positive mind about the technology. To broadly reject such a complex concept such as GE, which is still not an overly well defined or understood concept, may be rejecting important tools which both we today and the future generations may need.) 

"Finally, some people raised issues (e.g., about the need to "arm the future" with geoengineering technology) that I'll address in a separate post in the next few days, drawing on Stephen Gardiner's and Gregor Betz's work on those issues." (Should a community wait for a fire to breakout before politically creating a fire department, funding it, staffing it, training the staff for it, inventing the needed equipment for it, testing the equipment and staff, and then and only then using it to fight the first fire? To... not... first build a fire department, in a community of matchbox dwellers, would seem negligent (IMHO). 

 

 

Best,

 

Michael

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/qiSDWGZ38pA/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--

Michael Hayes

360-708-4976

http://www.voglerlake.com 

 

[Ronal W. Larson]

Michael(s), List,  Dave,  Ben etal

1.  This current thread got started on the 25th with David Morrow (below) referencing my earlier request for clarification on ethicists' views on differences between SRM and CDR.  We have now heard a bit more from David on that, from Ben Hale (both “official” academic philosophers), and have received mention also of the views of Christopher Preston and Clive Hamilton (writing on Heidegger).  Michael Hayes has given a few more that I need to follow up on.  Of these,  I have found at least four papers by Ben Hale to be pertinent to my original question  (this answering a question by Michael below).  I thank David for his views, which are not (yet, I think) in the form of a citable paper.  

 I am not interested in this thread of answers to why SRM - unless the dialog also includes CDR and answers a four-way question below.  I think Rosemary and Mike were not talking CDR.

2.  The Hale cites from his short note of the 25th are also at this site:  http://spot.colorado.edu/~bhale/ben_hale_cv.shtml

with the most relevant I have found as:  http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/hale/Hale%20--%20Getting%20the%20Bad%20Out%20--%20Published%20Version_optimized.pdf 

3.  I went to a three-day conference about the time David sent in his response on the 25th, and so am 6-7 days behind - especially caused by the papers cited by Ben Hale.  I intend to write up the different ethical views I have now found (will have terms like Hale’s “remediation" and “respect”) - but sure hope someone reading this has already done so.  The issue for me is not what decision anyone has come to on this comparison of ethical views on CDR vs SRM, but rather how they came to those views.  Ben is quite specific.  Dave is also.  I still hope for others - but specifically only if the cite mentions CDR, not something vaguely similar.

A compilation of ethicist’s views on CDR can’t be done in a day (at least by me).

   4.  This is part of a larger discussion that we should be having as anyone argues for either SRM or CDR or any of their subparts.  That is, which of the following four is the best (in a philosophical sense) option?  I believe this to be an exhaustive list.  Obviously we should also be doing all sorts of mitigation and adaptation.

a.  Neither of any CDR or SRM option   (I put E.T.C. and many of their allies here.  To them, “geoengineering” means both;  don’t do either.  I hope they can provide ethicist’s views supporting this view;  I haven’t seen such)

b.  Only one or more SRM options   (I see many SRM advocates here - because they feel CDR is not cheap enough and/or too slow.  I also have not yet seen an ethicist/philosopher’s cite with this view.)

c.  Only one or more CDR options   (I believe both Ben and Dave are here;  I might be.   One can vote for this option, even if you dislike some CDR options. I think Hamilton is here; maybe Preston?)

d.  Both CDR and SRM   (I might also be here;  I don’t know enough yet about the details of SRM options.  I could be convinced, but I need rebuttals, especially from ethicists favoring options b/d (are there any?) - or from proponents (b) of SRM-only trying to show group c/d advocates (like me) why we are wrong.)

Ron

Ron

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.