[geo] Re: Ethics of Geoengineering (food)
Ken Caldeira
_______________
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)
It's worth noting that the modeling result of a diminished monsoon isn't a highly reliable prediction.Also, the monsoon is not in any way optimal for agriculture or anything else. The biggest damage it causes is through flooding, ie, too much rain in a short while. Having been through some of them, I'd favor a lesser such storm.Gregory BenfordOn Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Ben Hale <bh...@colorado.edu> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Ben Hale <bh...@colorado.edu> wrote:
Well, again, there are many reasons to be concerned about geoengineering as a solution or response even to catastrophic outcomes, including those with a reasonable risk, “however small.” The “however smallness” of the risk mostly serves to defeat the argument that geoengineering ought to be pursued on grounds that we will be averting catastrophe. I do not follow how a GE technology, with "however small" and reasonable risk and one which is capable of responding to an environmental catastrohy, is defeated by its bignin nature. There are many courses of action that carry risks of catastrophe, however small—genetic modification, CERN research, nuclear testing, military escalation, and even geoengineering itself. Ought we to take extraordinary steps to pursue these projects, or to avoid pursuing them, given that the threat of catastrophe is real, though the risk small? Clearly, the likelihood of the outcome matters, and it will not suffice to say that any risk, however small, authorizes geoengineering. This seems to be nothing more than a personal view of the risk value. I personaly believe that the Arctic Methane Risk as being a vary high order of thing(s) to worry about. You seem to view the risk of a tipping point as something which has a low probability and will go away if we paint our roofs white. Unfortunatly, there is little consensious as to the true level of risk and so there is little clearity as to the strenght of needed action. Until we have a better understanding of the true risk level, we only have personal views. It is not defensable to put such personal views out as a basis for ethical authority. And, I am as guilty on that count as many other are.
No. It’s an counterfactual conditional. If it’s the case, then… I personally don’t believe the risk is small.
A similar concern applies even to cases of “significant risk.” In the case of geoengineering, the significant risk is only a ceteris paribus risk. Fortunately for us, everything is not ceteris paribus. The future is not only uncertain, but also indeterminate. It is not as though we have geoengineering and only geoengineering as options at our disposal. We have many options, including aggressive mitigation, aggressive adaptation, and even aggressive omission (just rolling the dice and allowing the significant risk of catastrophe to play out). Theoreticaly, these are all forms of GE. In the extream case, if we "roll the dice" and allow the possability of a tipping point to just play out, we will simply be GE the planet (perfectly for) bacteria and algae. Little more will be on this planet. Why pursue the most dramatic and totalizing course of action when there are so many other options? We don’t have an argument for choosing the most dramatic and totalizing course of action. Therefore, the position can’t be defended on grounds either that there is even a “significant” risk. Is this (do every thing but GE position) not just as much a 'dramatic and totalizing course of action' as geoengineering? Also, I can not understand how the potential extenction of most life forms on this planet, through a tipping point, is not grounds for defense of GE developement and eventual deployment.
If you think these are all forms of GE, then you’ve got a cavernously wide view of GE. If you have such a wide view of GE, then there is no ethical question about GE. It’s either permissible or obligatory or forbidden or a foregone conclusion (depending on your view of such actions). In other words, you’re begging the question. Ought we to geoengineer? Your answer to this question cannot be: geoengineering is permissible because everything we do is geoengineering.
We also oughtn’t to assume that just because some course of action is authorized that therefore all courses of action are thereby authorized. Just because maybe some geoengineering technology may be permissible, for instance, does not and cannot authorize all forms of geoengineering. More concretely and for example, just because it may be permissible to paint our roofs and highways white, doesn’t mean that it is therefore also permissible to shoot aerosols into the troposphere to achieve the same effect. These are different technologies, with different deployment features, and must be assessed differently. That is fully understood by most folks researching this field of thought.
Doesn’t sound like it to me.
Sorry to disappoint, but you’ll need stronger arguments than these if you want to say either (a) that it’s permissible or, more strongly, (b) that it’s obligatory. I enjoyed reading your personal opinion.
Cf: Socrates.
Benjamin Hale
Assistant Professor
Philosophy and Environmental Studies
University of Colorado, Boulder
Tel: 303 735-3624; Fax: 303 735-1576
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike MacCracken
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 10:08 AM
To: John Nissen
Cc: Andrew Lockley; Stephen Salter; Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Ethics of Geoengineering (anything new?)
Dear John—It seems to me that trying to make such clean distinctions as ethical or unethical is neither going to be possible nor to be an approach that attracts adherents. We are all in quite compromised positions given our present and past reliance on fossil fuel use and casting aspersions is not going to be seen as an approach that is appreciated or effective, especially in that it will be imposing significant requirements (and possibly other unintended impacts) on, particularly, future generations. What scientists try to do, to the limits of our abilities and capabilities, is to illuminate the situation being faced and the implications and consequences of possible choices. There can be many aspects of determining a course of action (or inaction) other than the scientific aspects (and at this point, the scientific and technological aspects alone are still in flux), and the discussions on ethics and governance (and more) are shining light on many other aspects to be considered. While we will never have perfect knowledge on any of this, it seems to me it is going to be much more effective helping to inform others by refining the understanding and uncertainties than darkly characterizing others who are similarly concerned about the seriousness of our predicament and also trying to work toward promoting a better future for us all.
Mike
On 4/11/12 11:40 AM, "John Nissen" <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I'd like to support an excellent posting earlier on this thread, from which I'd like to quote:
"The risk, however small, of a Permian scale catastrophe as a result of anthropogenic climate change, and the potential need for geoengineering to avert it, illustrates that geoengineering may in fact be the biggest ethical issue ever, opening the existential problem of human planetary survival."
I don't see how anybody could argue with this. Furthermore there is a significant risk that a catastrophe on this scale could happen as a result of Arctic warming, sea ice collapse and methane release. Thus those who oppose geoengineering to cool the Arctic, save the sea ice and dampen the methane emissions have to consider whether they are taking a ethical position.
Cheers,
John
---
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Mike MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net> wrote:Dear Andrew—As I recall, at least one of the Hadley scenarios for just GHGs had Amazonian vegetation dying away, so comparative evaluation could be very interesting—we do have to remember the decision is between GHG without GE (and there are multiple scenarios for this) and GHG with GE (and there are many GE possibilities as well, at least some of which can be tuned to minimize at least some types of impacts—making such choices, of course, will not be without controversy, some real and likely some speculative and inflammatory, etc.).
Best, Mike
On 4/11/12 7:21 AM, "Andrew Lockley" <and...@andrewlockley.com <http://and...@andrewlockley.com> > wrote:It's the imbalance of polar temperatures which is a cause for concern - a geoengineered arctic on its own. The result is a potential geographic shift of the ITCZ which could have dramatic effects on regional vegetation.
If we are to engineer only the arctic we need to be sure this won't mess up other parts of the climate system.
I hope Mike's model run will involve a range of forcings up to very large interventions, to detect any potential tipping points.
Putting the output through a vegetation model will hopefully give us some really useful info.
A
On Apr 11, 2012 11:38 AM, "Stephen Salter" <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk <http://S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk> > wrote:
Andrew
If geoengineering in the Arctic to restore previous Arctic temperatures is going to mess up monsoons what does John Shepherd say will happen to monsoons with dramatically increased Arctic temperatures?
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
Institute for Energy Systems
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL
Scotland
Tel +44 131 650 5704 <tel:%2B44%20131%20650%205704> <tel:%2B44%20131%20650%205704>
Mobile 07795 203 195
www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs> <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs>
On 11/04/2012 02:23, Andrew Lockley wrote:
John Shepherd cautioned me that there's a risk that Arctic geoengineering could move the ITCZ, and hence the monsoon.
If we're even considering doing this at any point in the next couple of decades, we should IMO be pushing modelling studies right away. The consequences of inadvertently affecting the monsoon are very serious indeed, and we need to accurately model the teleconnections before making actionable proposals.
My understanding is that this needs a high res GCM model to resolve this effect. I hope a group can run this.
A
On Apr 10, 2012 11:36 PM, "Mike MacCracken" <mmac...@comcast.net <http://mmac...@comcast.net> > wrote:
I’ve been off-line for most of this discussion, but let me offer a couple of comments regarding tropospheric sulfate. The major health and environmental impacts of sulfate and the SO2 emissions been that, because the SO2 is a by product of coal combustion, the emission of SO2 and deposition of sulfate have been generally in the most populated regions of the world (North Atlantic basin through much of the 20th century, and now, presumably, mainly eastern and southern Asia). In a geoengineering application, limited scientific results suggest that it would be much more effective to be creating the sulfate layer out over the dark ocean, in relatively clean areas to enhance cloud brightening, and in low latitudes to get maximum solar exposure—and it would make no sense to put out all the other byproducts of coal combustion that may actually be the cause of the worst health impacts. Thus, assuming one could technically emit the SO2 over remote Pacific and Indian ocean areas in ways that would create larger areas with lower amounts of sulfate to get a similar or even greater cooling effect, the ethical (and governance) issues concern how might one make the tradeoffs of perhaps significantly reduced climate impacts for billions, but, quite possibly, a different mix of impacts (some less, some more) for millions.
My suggestions to use sulfate in the Arctic troposphere during the Arctic sunlit season only raise similar issues—though in this case those in the Arctic presumably get very significant benefits in that one would be trying to preserve the present or slightly cooler climate while experiencing some impacts (for several reasons quite possibly lower health impacts than caused by past SO2 emissions) with key potential benefits of slowing or countering permafrost thawing (so reducing global warming) and ice sheet mass loss (so reducing sea level rise) with likely some impacts on precipitation systems that are good for some and detrimental to others, etc. Again, very challenging governance and ethical aspects (not to mention public education challenges to have an informed discussion).
And then there is the potential that some other suitable substance could be generated (e.g., sea salt CCN) that would presumably limit the health impacts (although this may well not be the dominant impact to be considered, there are economic considerations, and lots more). And there may be particular operational considerations that can minimize some types of impacts, etc.
With so much (and more) to be considered, it seems to me there is a very significant need to be augmenting scientific thinking about all of this—indeed, the engineering and scientific aspects might well be the least challenging aspects.
Mike MacCracken
On 4/9/12 12:28 AM, "John Nissen" <johnnis...@gmail.com <http://johnnis...@gmail.com> <http://johnnis...@gmail.com> > wrote:
Hi Oliver,
I attended the Planet Under Pressure conference, for the session on geoengineering governance. A cynic would regard most of the speakers as people who had found a nice subject for academic study, and were not particularly interested in whether geoengineering was actually required! But let me move on from cynicism.
I take John Gorman's point that the problem we face is essentially an engineering problem, quoting the economist Robert Samuelson who said:
"The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless."
As an engineer as well as a scientist, I am able see the Earth System as a piece of engineering, where the mechanism controlling stability (especially of temperature and the carbon cycle) has been damaged and requires repair. Certain parts of the system are critically damaged and require repair immediately before the system collapses into a new state, inconducive to the continuation of civilisation as we know it. In this situation, not to intervene would be suicidal, and therefore there is a moral imperative to act.
Now, I agree with Michael Hayes's argument that that any action to affect the Earth System, whether deliberate or inadvertent, should be considered geoengineering. For me the question of morality of some particular geoengineering technique or measure, is whether it is helping to repair (or allow repair of) the Earth System or not.
May I now take an example of where a 'good/ethical measure' from one point of view is a 'bad/unethical measure' from another point of view. This is sulphate aerosol in the troposphere. This has been countering the global warming of greenhouse gases by up to 75% during the past century, until there was a determined effort to reduce sulphur 'pollution' in the 80s and 90s. This effort continues with an effort to further reduce tropospheric sulphur by removing the sulphur from the 'bunker fuel' used by ships. It has been estimated that ships have contributed a negative forcing (i.e. a global cooling) of up to 0.6 Watts/m-2.
So from one point of view - the pollution point of view, which prevails today - the removal of sulphur from bunker fuel is a good thing. But if one considers how seriously damaged the Earth System has become, especially with the sea ice retreat in the Arctic, removal of sulphur is close to suicidal, and definitely bad/unethical.
Leaving sulphur in ship's fuel is not going to save the Arctic sea ice, but will definitely help. If you agree with the argument that saving the sea ice is necessary to reduce the risk of methane feedback (i.e. necessary to defuse the methane time-bomb) then removing sulphur from ship's fuel is not sensible.
The case for SRM geoengineering to cool the Arctic is much clearer. Without some rapid cooling action to save the Arctic sea ice, the Arctic warming will accelerate, methane feedback will almost inevitably gain traction, and we could be in for run-away global warming - definitely suicidal.
So SRM geoengineering has to be part of the solution of the engineering problem, in the case of the Arctic sea ice. Not to geoengineer would be suicidal and therefore immoral.
John
---
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Oliver Morton <Oliver...@economist.com <http://Oliver...@economist.com> <http://Oliver...@economist.com> > wrote:
Do philosophers have to be service providers -- can't they simply be doing philosophy on a topic they find interesting? And if they are service providers to whom are they providing their services (who is "us" in Ken's post). Society at large, or natural scientists involved in geoengineering research, or some other entity?
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu <http://kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu> <http://kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu> > wrote:
So, would it be safe to say that the primary service that philosophers are trying to provide is to help us to use language precisely and to think more clearly about difficult issues?
Is the analogy then of the person needing to do a calculation, asking the mathematician for help, where there is no expectation of really generating significant new mathematics to solve the problem? Nevertheless, we might surprise ourselves and our plebeian problems might in fact induce innovation within the helping discipline.
---
Admittedly, I looked at your first paper only, which discussed 'moral hazard'. It does seem to me useful to examine what is meant by this term, and how people are using it differently in the geoengineering context.
It is good to know when we have a disagreement whether that disagreement is a difference in our understanding of the facts, a difference in our values, or whether it is a difference in how we are applying words. (And also if it is possible to have disagreements that somehow sit between these categories -- are there clear boundaries between matters language, values, and fact?)
Insofar as philosophers are able to help us disentangle differences in use of language from differences in value judgments and differences in our understanding of the facts, this is a useful enterprise. More often than not, these things are muddied in discussion. It would be useful if everyone, when we have a disagreement, would make a greater effort to identify the source and nature of the disagreement.
=======================
On matters of language, I am with Humpty Dumpty. I am usually willing to defer to anyone's usage, if they can provide a reasonably clear definition explaining how they are using terms. On the other hand, I am very much with Hume in wanting to clearly distinguish between is and ought, while recognizing that much of language embodies both fact and value.
Think of the use of a term like 'enhances' that implicitly contains a value judgment -- if we assert that 'ocean fertilization increases carbon export' are we also asserting that 'ocean fertilization enhances carbon export'? Can I agree we the first assertion and disagree with the latter? Sometimes we don't understand when we are making a factual statement and when we are implicitly presenting a value judgment.
========================
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”
--Lewis Carrol, Through the Looking Glass, 1872
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Ben Hale <bh...@colorado.edu <http://bh...@colorado.edu> <http://bh...@colorado.edu> > wrote:
I guess a philosopher should probably pipe in here.
I work a fair bit on ethics and geoengineering. Most of what I've been doing has been oriented around getting a clearer sense of what problem geoengineering is supposedly a response to. There's a prevailing assumption, for instance, that we well understand the problem with climate change, but I think this is far from clear. Supposedly, the problem with climate change is that the climate will change, and presumably this will be a change for the worse. I don't disagree that the change will be for the worse, but that it will be worse simpliciter doesn’t strike me as the core problem. Many things in the world change for the worse, and only sometimes do we respond to them. The question of geoengineering, and the variety associated technologies, can help us get a grip on the nature of the climate change problem. So that’s one way in which geoengineering has interest philosophically: by shedding light on the problem that many of us are keen to address and helping us understand the nature of our obligations to address this problem.
Another way in which ethics and geoengineering are philosophically interesting is in a clinical sense: we need to ask what sorts of things we’re permitted or obligated to do; and what sorts of things we’re restricted from doing. Just as a bioethicist dissects the sundry questions associated with health, technology, and medicine, so too can ethicists do the same with geoengineering. There are many related questions about the permissibility of one technology over another, as clearly some technologies will demand more of some, or perhaps burden others, in ways that are unacceptably unfair.
Beyond the forward-looking clinical ethical questions, there are also questions related to definition and the nature of geoengineering. For instance, I think the distinction between SRM and CDR is falsely concrete, and that instead we should distinguish according to whether geoengineering is an attempt to remediate (that is, to draw down our carbon and GHG contributions, as well as our bad land-use decisions, by way of cleaning up our messes) versus an attempt to steer (that is, to avoid anticipated bad consequences from our prior actions). To me, at least, this distinction helps us understand some relatively powerful intuitions that we may have, for instance, that air capture technologies and reforestation practices are nowhere near as worrisome as stratospheric injection technologies and ocean fertilization proposals.
As to Ken's initial inquiry, it's hard to say, generally, what philosophers are doing. It is true that in one respect there's nothing new under the sun, that all hitherto philosophy is just a series of footnotes to Plato, but what most of professional philosophers take themselves to be doing is gaining a bit more clarity and insight on current and ancient problems than otherwise might be gained simply by picking up the classic texts. In the case of geoengineering, there's a lot of work to be done that may help us get to a better place with a more intelligent discourse.
Here's some of my published work on the topic:
1. “The World that Would Have Been: Moral Hazard Arguments against Geoengineering” Reflecting Sunlight: The Ethics of Solar Radiation Management Ed. Christopher Preston. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. 2012. Forthcoming, 2012. http://spot.colorado.edu/~bhale/Geoengineering_and_Moral_Hazard_webversion.pdf <http://spot.colorado.edu/%7Ebhale/Geoengineering_and_Moral_Hazard_webversion.pdf> <http://spot.colorado.edu/%7Ebhale/Geoengineering_and_Moral_Hazard_webversion.pdf>
2. “Getting the Bad Out: Remediation Technologies and Respect for Others” The Environment: Philosophy, Science, and Ethics. Eds. Kabasenche, W.B., O'Rourke, M., and Slater, M. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Forthcoming, 2012. http://spot.colorado.edu/~bhale/Getting_the_Bad_Out_MIT_draft_single-spaced.pdf <http://spot.colorado.edu/%7Ebhale/Getting_the_Bad_Out_MIT_draft_single-spaced.pdf> <http://spot.colorado.edu/%7Ebhale/Getting_the_Bad_Out_MIT_draft_single-spaced.pdf>
3. “Non-renewable Resources and the Inevitability of Outcomes,” The Monist, 94(1), July 2011. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2011.28.pdf
4. “Carbon Sequestration, Ocean Fertilization, and the Problem of Permissible Pollution” (with Lisa Dilling), Science, Technology, and Human Values. 36(2): 190-212. 2011. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/whp/ev/2009/00000018/00000004/art00003
5. “Remediation and Respect: Do Remediation Technologies Alter Our Responsibility?” (with Bill Grundy), Environmental Values. 18(4). 2009. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/whp/ev/2009/00000018/00000004/art00003
6. “You say 'solution', I say 'pollution': Ocean fertilization is a fishy solution to a whale of a problem,” Guest commentary, Science Progress, August 18, 2009. http://scienceprogress.org/2009/08/ocean-fertilization-ethics/
I have a few other pieces in various stages of progress as well. I’m happy to share.
Beyond this, there’s some really great stuff coming out now from a number of other sources. Christopher Preston has convened a volume on the Ethics of Solar Radiation Management, we’re publishing a series of essays later this summer in the journal Ethics, Policy, & Environment, and there is even more stuff forthcoming.
These bibliographies compiled by Preston should prove helpful:
http://www.umt.edu/ethics/resourcecenter/default.php
http://www.umt.edu/ethics/resourcecenter/bibliography/ethics.php
Enjoy!
Best,
Ben
Benjamin Hale
Assistant Professor
Philosophy and Environmental Studies
University of Colorado, Boulder
Tel: 303 735-3624 <tel:303%20735-3624> <tel:303%20735-3624> <tel:303%20735-3624> ; Fax: 303 735-1576 <tel:303%20735-1576> <tel:303%20735-1576> <tel:303%20735-1576>
http://www.practicalreason.com
http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com
Ethics, Policy & Environment
-----Original Message-----
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com <http://geoengi...@googlegroups.com> <http://geoengi...@googlegroups.com> [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 6:04 AM
To: omeco...@gmail.com <http://omeco...@gmail.com> <http://omeco...@gmail.com>
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Ethics of Geoengineering (anything new?)
I think I simply use the word 'philosophy' different than most modern philosophers.
Just as I think of mathematicians developing new mathematical theory while the rest of us apply existing theory to do calculations aimed at solving real world pproblems, I thought philosophers were developing new general theory and the rest of were applying this theory in our own moral calculations.
It seems to me that alot of what is beig called 'philosphy' is people trying to do moral calculations.
Often math progresses because a calculational need arises for which there is no existig relevant mathematical theory and this spurs the mathematicians to develop new theory
It seems to me that the ethics of decision making when decisions affect others not involved in the decision making is a problem as old as the hills.
I just don't see how this itch is going to need a scratch of a different kind. Aren't existig types of scratches are sufficient? I will be suprised if geoengineering will really be an irritant that can spur philosophical innovation. Not impossible, but I am dubious.
In contrast, I do see how neuroscience can perhaps act a an tch that promotes new types if philosophical scratches.
Ken Caldeira
kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu <http://kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu> <http://kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu> <mailto:kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
+1 650 704 7212 <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212> <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212> <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212>
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab <http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab>
Sent from a limited-typing keyboard
On Apr 8, 2012, at 0:13, O Morton <omeco...@gmail.com <http://omeco...@gmail.com> <http://omeco...@gmail.com> <mailto:omeco...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> I agree with Ninad; philosophy feeds on novelty in its continual
> reassessments; it doesn't assimilate it in a serial model of progress.
> Many philosophical problems are not solved (though they may be moved
> outside the realm of philosophy by other developments), and few are
> novel. There's a relevant quotation from Wittgenstein:
>
> “Philosophy has made no progress? If somebody scratches where it
> itches, does that count as progress? If not, does that mean it wasn’t
> an authentic scratch? Not an authentic itch? Couldn’t this response to
> the stimulus go on for quite a long time until a remedy for itching is
> found?”
>
> Geoengineering may be a new itch for philosophy to scratch, and
> scratching is not an inappropriate response to itches.
>
> And again as Ninad said, changes in the way science views the world
> may change the way we philosophise. Parfitt's notion of
> intergeneratonal justice (which is clearly relevant to geoengineering
> and climate issues) clearly rests on seeing what makes a person
> through a particular biological lens (see
> http://ijdb.auzigog.com/concept/parfit%E2%80%99s-paradox <http://ijdb.auzigog.com/concept/parfit%E2%80%99s-paradox>
> )
>
> On Apr 7, 10:47 pm, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com <http://voglerl...@gmail.com> <http://voglerl...@gmail.com> <mailto:voglerl...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> I have often found my thoughts on the ethics issue streaming back to
>> the issue of the definition of GE.
>>
>> In short, the difference between '*intentional' *modification of the
>> climate and *'unintentionaly',* yet knowingly, causing such at the
>> second order (global) effect level seems to be a distinction without a difference.
>>
>> Clearly, the use of FFs is causing climate change and we know that to
>> a high degree of certainty. Is not the further use of FFs an act of
>> GE in of itself? The legal concepts of "Indifference to Risk"(1) and
>> "Deliberate Indifference Law"(2) seems to adversely addresses, show a
>> flaw in, the use of the word "intentional" as it is used to define GE.
>>
>> Simply put: With the current understanding of the role FF use has on
>> our climate, should not the continued use of FFs be accepted as a
>> true form of GE?
>>
>> 1: Indifference to Risk
>> Law:http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/indifference-to-risk/
>> 2: Deliberate Indifference
>> Law:http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/deliberate-indifference/
>>
>> This overall ethics issue must first be looked at from the
>> perspective of Metaethics. In simplistic terms, Metaethics is, first
>> and foremost, the *
>> 'art'* of reaching agreed upon definition(s). Only after the
>> definition(s) are agreed upon can the relationship between the
>> subject and society be illuminated. That is the only way a Venn
>> Diagram, concerning GE or apples and oranges, can be built. Only
>> after this stage is thoroughly debated (yes..both pro and con....and
>> so far there has been little ethical defence of GE) can the fields of normative and applied ethics be properly applied.
>>
>> For those just exploring the finer details of the ethical issue,
>> Stanford's Encyclopedia has a good primer on the foundational nature of Metaethics:
>>
>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/ <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/>
>>
>> I have yet noticed any work, by those who have taken up the challenge
>> of GE ethics, which addresses the fundamental issue of *validating*
>> the current/basic definition of GE. It appears to me that the word *
>> 'Intentional'*, used within the standard definition of GE, has
>> blinded the ethics debate to the cogent and apparent 900lb (FF)
>> gorilla sitting upon our collective chest. Is not the large scale use
>> of FFs changing our environment? Intentionally or unintentionally? Is
>> this Intentional/unintentional distinction a false distinction that
>> make little real world difference?
>>
>> Being indifferent to the reality that *FF based anthropogenic GE* is
>> a current and substantial real world fact must be rejected. Due to
>> the highly dangerous nature of the continued FF use to our
>> environment, our only collective hope of survival is to immediately
>> reject FF use or design ways to substantially mediate the damage caused by continued global FF usage.
>>
>> The first option will not be even remotely realistic for many
>> decades. The second option is thus our only *'ethical'* option if we
>> wish to avoid collective suicide. At this time in our global social
>> development, collective suicide is widely considered *'unethical'*.
>> And thus, the reasonable means to avoid such a suicidal situation
>> (GE) *must* be considered *'ethical'*.
>>
>> I personally find the ethical issue somewhat straight forward. We
>> either collectively accept large scale mitigation of the
>> environmental damage of continued FF usage (until a non-FF economy
>> becomes real) or we parish while debating the obvious mitigation alternative(s), i.e. GE.
>>
>> Freedom which comes with having many options is widely viewed as the
>> 'sweetest' and most desirable form of freedom. Unfortunately, until a
>> renewable energy economy is widely developed and used upon this
>> planet, we collectively have very few viable options for surviving the FF economy.
>> Ignoring the real world aspects of our FF addiction (knowingly
>> changing the environment and being indifferent to the* obvious GE
>> aspects of continued FF usage*....etc.) and then declaring as
>> '*unethical'* the few 'intentional' GE options for mitigating the
>> damage of that addiction is not rational.....Thus, nor is such a view ethical.
>>
>> When ethics become irrational, we truly have no hope.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Nathan Currier <natcurr...@gmail.com <http://natcurr...@gmail.com> <http://natcurr...@gmail.com> <mailto:natcurr...@gmail.com> >wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Sorry, I meant to post the below to this thread, in response to
>>> Ken's query, but hit the wrong button.
>>> On the other hand, the post of Andrea and Christopher makes me
>>> wonder how it will get interpreted....
>>> the very approach to "ethics" here suggests a conventional framework
>>> in which what I raise might not seem to make much sense....But why
>>> did Lewis Thomas say that it (the "four letter" concept referenced
>>> below), might eventually be seen as "one of the major
>>> discontinuities in human thought"? It is such a big idea because it
>>> ultimately calls into question far-reaching things like the very
>>> subject for any ethics. What is the "entity" of the ethics, the
>>> individual? What is that? There are ten times more cells without my
>>> nucleic DNA than with it, inside my own body, so what become of "my"
>>> interests? Like arguing about the "unit of selection" in
>>> evolutionary theory, arguments about what define "superorganisms"
>>> are immensely impactful to the very foundations of considering
>>> values for human behavior, ethics.
>>
>>> Hi, Ken -
>>> That there's "nothing new under the sun" is equally true for
>>> philosophy and solar radiation management, I suppose, yet this
>>> doesn't prevent philosophy from continuing on, changing, and, yes,
>>> sometimes circling its wagons over millennia.
>>> I think that, philosophically speaking, there's something important
>>> and different in our time, if not entirely new, that entirely
>>> surrounds geoengineering but isn't just the geoengineering itself.
>>> But sorry, to get into it one needs to take up that uber-dangerous
>>> "four letter word," as it's been called. Don't worry, I won't name
>>> it.
>>> Fred Pearce said that "if ---- dare not speak her name in Nature,
>>> then shame on science."
>>> Moral philosopher Mary Midley made a strong case that this
>>> represents a a major change in philosophy for our time. Her book
>>> Science and Poetry is all about tracing lines of thought from
>>> Lucretius through Dawkins (I'm not sure I am convinced by how she
>>> posits De Rerum Natura in relation to modern thought, but it makes a
>>> most interesting read), finally focusing on the "four-letter"
>>> approach as a new
>>> way of getting beyond certain old "atomist" arguments. Lynn Margulis
>>> sometimes said that Americans seem particularly prone to feel that
>>> it isn't important to have any philosophy, but if one wants to get
>>> into a discussion of geoengineering and philosophy, it would seem to
>>> me almost impossible to stay shy from the new "four- letter" world
>>> and all the disputes about it and what it really means - indeed, one
>>> could even say the dirty word IS the philosophy of geoengineering:
>>> as Midgley points out, the word geophysiology was introduced
>>> specifically to frame the "four letter" concept, launching with it a
>>> 'medical model'
>>> in which the planet is conceived something like a patient to be
>>> doctored......wouldn't that be geoengineering? So, the new ethical
>>> issue, Ken, is ------!
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Nathan
>>
>>> On Apr 7, 1:12 pm, Andrea Gammon <a.r.gam...@gmail.com <http://a.r.gam...@gmail.com> <http://a.r.gam...@gmail.com> <mailto:a.r.gam...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>>>> Hi Ken, John, and all,
>>
>>>> You are definitely right in part. Many of the issues raised by
>>>> geoengineering are familiar issues in ethics involving questions of
>>>> harm, risk, uncertainty, potential moral corruption, and participation.
>>
>>>> Other issues are familiar but perhaps scaled up. These would be
>>>> issues
>>> like
>>>> the (alleged) moral hazard, the whole politics of geoengineering, a
>>>> particularly challenging type of responsibility to future
>>>> generations,
>>> and
>>>> the question of whether this is a problem best suited to a technical fix.
>>
>>>> And then there are probably a couple of issues that are new(-ish)
>>>> in this context. These might include the morality of intentional
>>>> manipulation of earth systems at this level, what this does to the
>>>> idea of 'natural', and questions about fairness in regards to
>>>> climate manipulation. Broad discussions about hubris and the proper
>>>> role of humans in the biosphere have also been cropping up in
>>>> discussions of geoengineering by environmental ethicists.
>>
>>>> To John's suggestion that this should be treated as merely an
>>>> engineering problem, one might note (with David Keith and others)
>>>> that engineers
>>> design
>>>> solutions for for particular clients/publics. What counts as a
>>>> solution depends on the values people hold. This means that
>>>> engineers are
>>> compelled
>>>> to incorporate moral values in their work. And of course there is a
>>>> whole literature is science studies (somewhat controversial) about
>>>> the presence of values in much of science.
>>
>>>> On our end and in our work, we encourage those involved in the more
>>>> technical aspects of geoengineering to entertain ethical questions
>>>> in the discussion. Ethicists are going to be hovering around the
>>>> periphery
>>> anyway,
>>>> for instance, there is a panel on the ethics of geoengineering at
>>>> the International Society for Environmental Ethics meeting in June.
>>>> Numerous parties, from Crutzen to the Royal Society to the NSF, see
>>>> ethics as a legitimate and essential part of the discussion.
>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Andrea and Christopher
>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Ken Caldeira <
>>
>>>> kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu <http://kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> <http://kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> <mailto:kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> > wrote:
>>>>> Having but an undergraduate degree in Philosophy, you can forgive
>>>>> me
>>> for
>>>>> asking stupid questions, but ...
>>
>>>>> Does geoengineering raise any ethical issues not already
>>>>> considered by historical figures such as Aristotle, Hume, Kant, and so on?
>>
>>>>> Isn't the ethics of making decisions that affect others not
>>>>> involved in making the decisions a problem as old as humanity?
>>
>>>>> I just don't understand how there is anything new here for philosophy.
>>
>>>>> Surely there are
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more »
>
> --
> 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 <http://geoengi...@googlegroups.com> <http://geoengi...@googlegroups.com> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <http://geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com> <http://geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com> <mailto:geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en <http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com <http://geoengi...@googlegroups.com> .
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <http://geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com> <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com <http://geoengi...@googlegroups.com> .
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <http://geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com> .
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
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 <http://geoengi...@googlegroups.com> .
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <http://geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com> <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to 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.--
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.--
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.
--
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.
Ninad Bondre
monsoon and ITCZ seem most comfortable in commenting on it. I hope
they are also interested in the opinions of the small farmer in
Western India or the goatherd in Mali.
A complex set of factors goes into the agricultural, economic and
social impacts of the monsoon and its variability -- whether real or
perceived. See, for example, the article on the Indian Monsoon here:
http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/December2008.htm. Some of the
statements about the ITCZ and monsoon in this thread do not seem to
fully acknowledge that complexity.
From the abstracts of two of the papers Ken cites below:
"Nevertheless, possible yield losses on the local scale as well as
known and unknown side effects and risks associated with
geoengineering indicate that the most certain way to reduce climate
risks to global food security is to reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases." And, "Regional diversity in the response to different levels
of solar-radiation management could make consensus about the optimal
level of geoengineering difficult, if not impossible, to achieve."
What happens at the regional and local scales -- besides a host of
other factors -- is important in determining whether the intended or
unintended consequences of geoengineeing could be labelled as positive
or negative. To their credit (and I presume to the credit of the
reviewers and editors), these papers provide a rather nuanced take on
the tough issues at stake. It would be good if our discussions on this
forum did that too, on a more regular basis.
Ninad Bondre
PS - How can we assure ourselves that the same sorts of institutional
failures that can affect food supply will not affect the design and
execution of geoengineering schemes?
On Apr 12, 3:57 pm, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
wrote:
> 'reasonable' amount of deflection of sunlight has concluded that climate
> overall is brought much closer back to the pre-industrial state but that
> you are left with increased CO2-fertilization.
>
> The only study done to date explicitly focusing on crop yields has
> concluded that crop yields would likely go up and not down.
>
> See, for examples:
>
>
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_research/BanWeiss_C...
>
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_research/Govindasam...
> Also, Kate Ricke's work has concluded that for most reasonable climate
> change metrics, if any party acted in their own self-interest every party
> We have made YouTube videos about some of these studies:
>
> Dr. Katharine L. Ricke
> (3:09)<http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_Videotranscripts/Ri...>
> - Crop yields in a geoengineered climate: Dr. Julia Pongratz
> (4:02)<http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_Videotranscripts/Po...>
> - Crop yields in a geoengineered climate: Ken Caldeira
> (2:28)<http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_Videotranscripts/Po...>
> This "threatens food supply of billions" stuff is completely unsupported by
> any rigorous analysis whatsoever. If anyone's food supply is threatened,
> it will be a result of institutional failures associated with food
> distribution, not because of lack of food supply.
>
> _______________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>
> *Currently visiting * Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies
> (IASS)<http://www.iass-potsdam.de/>
>
> *and *Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Resarch
> (PIK)<http://www.pik-potsdam.de/>
> *in Potsdam, Germany.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Gregory Benford <xbenf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's worth noting that the modeling result of a diminished monsoon isn't a
> > highly reliable prediction.
>
> > Also, the monsoon is not in any way optimal for agriculture or anything
> > else. The biggest damage it causes is through flooding, ie, too much rain
> > in a short while. Having been through some of them, I'd favor a lesser such
> > storm.
>
> > Gregory Benford
>
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Ben Hale <bh...@colorado.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Ben Hale <bh...@colorado.edu> wrote:****
> >> Well, again, there are many reasons to be concerned about geoengineering
> >> as a solution or response even to catastrophic outcomes, including those
> >> with a reasonable risk, “however small.” The “however smallness” of the
> >> risk mostly serves to defeat the argument that geoengineering ought to be
> >> pursued on grounds that we will be averting catastrophe. I do not follow
> >> how a GE technology, with "however small" and reasonable risk and one which
> >> is capable of responding to an environmental catastrohy, is defeated by its
> >> bignin nature. There are many courses of action that carry risks of
> >> catastrophe, however small—genetic modification, CERN research, nuclear
> >> testing, military escalation, and even geoengineering itself. Ought we to
> >> take extraordinary steps to pursue these projects, or to avoid pursuing
> >> them, given that the threat of catastrophe is real, though the risk small?
> >> Clearly, the likelihood of the outcome matters, and it will not suffice to
> >> say that any risk, however small, authorizes geoengineering. This seems
> >> to be nothing more than a personal view of the risk value. I personaly
> >> believe that the Arctic Methane Risk as being a vary high order of thing(s)
> >> to worry about. You seem to view the risk of a tipping point as something
> >> which has a low probability and will go away if we paint our roofs white.
> >> Unfortunatly, there is little consensious as to the true level of risk and
> >> so there is little clearity as to the strenght of needed action. Until we
> >> have a better understanding of the true risk level, we only have personal
> >> views. It is not defensable to put such personal views out as a basis for
> >> are. ****
> >> No. It’s an counterfactual conditional. If it’s the case, then… I
> >> A similar concern applies even to cases of “significant risk.” In the
> >> *ceteris paribus*. The future is not only uncertain, but also
> >> geoengineering as options at our disposal. We have many options, including
> >> aggressive mitigation, aggressive adaptation, and even aggressive omission
> >> (just rolling the dice and allowing the significant risk of catastrophe to
> >> play out). Theoreticaly, these are all forms of GE. In the extream case,
> >> if we "roll the dice" and allow the possability of a tipping point to just
> >> play out, we will simply be GE the planet (perfectly for) bacteria and
> >> algae. Little more will be on this planet. Why pursue the most dramatic
> >> and totalizing course of action when there are so many other options? We
> >> don’t have an argument for choosing the most dramatic and totalizing course
> >> of action. Therefore, the position can’t be defended on grounds either that
> >> there is even a “significant” risk. Is this (do every thing
> >> but GE position) not just as much a 'dramatic and totalizing course of
> >> action' as geoengineering? Also, I can not understand how the potential
> >> extenction of most life forms on this planet, through a tipping point, is
> >> If you think these are all forms of GE, then you’ve got a cavernously
> >> wide view of GE. If you have such a wide view of GE, then there is no
> >> ethical question about GE. It’s either permissible or obligatory or
> >> forbidden or a foregone conclusion (depending on your view of such
> >> actions). In other words, you’re begging the question. Ought we to
> >> geoengineer? Your answer to this question cannot be: geoengineering is
> >> We also oughtn’t to assume that just because some course of action is
> >> authorized that therefore all courses of action are thereby authorized.
> >> Just because maybe some geoengineering technology may be permissible, for
> >> instance, does not and cannot authorize all forms of geoengineering. More
> >> concretely and for example, just because it may be permissible to paint our
> >> roofs and highways white, doesn’t mean that it is therefore also
> >> permissible to shoot aerosols into the troposphere to achieve the same
> >> effect. These are different technologies, with different deployment
> >> features, and must be assessed differently. That is fully understood by
>
> >> Doesn’t sound like it to me.****
> >> Sorry to disappoint, but you’ll need stronger arguments than these if you
> >> want to say either (a) that it’s permissible or, more strongly, (b) that
>
> >> Cf: Socrates.****
>
> >> Benjamin Hale****
>
> >> Assistant Professor****
>
> >> Philosophy <http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy> and Environmental Studies<http://envs.colorado.edu/>
> >> ****
>
> >> University of Colorado, Boulder****
>
> >> Tel: 303 735-3624; Fax: 303 735-1576****
>
> >>http://www.practicalreason.com****
>
> >>http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com****
>
> >> *Ethics, Policy & Environment <http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cepe>*****
>
> >> ****
>
> >> ****
>
> >> ****
>
> >> *From:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> >> geoengi...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike MacCracken
> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 11, 2012 10:08 AM
> >> *To:* John Nissen
> >> *Cc:* Andrew Lockley; Stephen Salter; Geoengineering****
>
> >> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: Ethics of Geoengineering (anything new?)****
>
> >> ****
> >> Dear John—It seems to me that trying to make such clean distinctions as
> >> ethical or unethical is neither going to be possible nor to be an approach
> >> that attracts adherents. We are all in quite compromised positions given
> >> our present and past reliance on fossil fuel use and casting aspersions is
> >> not going to be seen as an approach that is appreciated or effective,
> >> especially in that it will be imposing significant requirements (and
> >> possibly other unintended impacts) on, particularly, future generations.
> >> What scientists try to do, to the limits of our abilities and capabilities,
> >> is to illuminate the situation being faced and the implications and
> >> consequences of possible choices. There can be many aspects of determining
> >> a course of action (or inaction) other than the scientific aspects (and at
> >> this point, the scientific and technological aspects alone are still in
> >> flux), and the discussions on ethics and governance (and more) are shining
> >> light on many other aspects to be considered. While we will never have
> >> perfect knowledge on any of this, it seems to me it is going to be much
> >> more effective helping to inform others by refining the understanding and
> >> uncertainties than darkly characterizing others who are similarly concerned
> >> about the seriousness of our predicament and also trying to work toward
> >> promoting a better future for us all.
>
> >> Mike
>
> >> Hi all,
>
> >> I'd like to support an excellent posting earlier on this thread, from
> >> which I'd like to quote:
>
> >> "The risk, however small, of a Permian scale catastrophe as a result of
> >> anthropogenic climate change, and the potential need for geoengineering to
> >> avert it, illustrates that geoengineering may in fact be the biggest
> >> ethical issue ever, opening the existential problem of human planetary
> >> survival."
>
> >> I don't see how anybody could argue with this. Furthermore there is a
> >> significant risk that a catastrophe on this scale could happen as a result
> >> of Arctic warming, sea ice collapse and methane release. Thus those who
> >> oppose geoengineering to cool the Arctic, save the sea ice and dampen the
> >> methane emissions have to consider whether they are taking a ethical
> >> position.
> >> Cheers,
>
> >> John
> >> ---
>
> >> wrote:****
> >> Dear Andrew—As I recall, at least one of the Hadley scenarios for just
> >> GHGs had Amazonian vegetation dying away, so comparative evaluation could
> >> be very interesting—we do have to remember the decision is between GHG
> >> without GE (and there are multiple scenarios for this) and GHG with GE (and
> >> there are many GE possibilities as well, at least some of which can be
> >> tuned to minimize at least some types of impacts—making such choices, of
> >> course, will not be without controversy, some real and likely some
> >> speculative and inflammatory, etc.).
>
> >> Best, Mike
>
> >> On 4/11/12 7:21 AM, "Andrew Lockley" <and...@andrewlockley.com <
> >> It's the imbalance of polar temperatures which is a cause for concern - a
> >> geoengineered arctic on its own. The result is a potential geographic shift
> >> of the ITCZ which could have dramatic effects on regional vegetation.
>
> >> If we are to engineer only the arctic we need to be sure this won't mess
> >> up other parts of the climate system.
>
> >> I hope Mike's model run will involve a range of forcings up to very large
> >> interventions, to detect any potential tipping points.
>
> >> Putting the output through a vegetation model will hopefully give us some
> >> really useful info.
>
> >> A
> >> http://S.Sal...@ed.ac.uk> > wrote:****
> >> Andrew
>
> >> If geoengineering in the Arctic to restore previous Arctic temperatures
> >> is going to mess up monsoons what does John Shepherd say will happen to
> >> monsoons with dramatically increased Arctic temperatures?
>
> >> Stephen
>
> >> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
> >> Institute for Energy Systems
> >> School of Engineering
> >> Mayfield Road
> >> University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL
> >> Scotland
> >> <tel:%2B44%20131%20650%205704 <%2B44%20131%20650%205704>>
> >>www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs<http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs> <
> >>http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs>
>
> >> John Shepherd cautioned me that there's a risk that Arctic geoengineering
> >> could move the ITCZ, and hence the monsoon.
>
> >> If we're even considering doing this at any point in the next couple of
> >> decades, we should IMO be pushing modelling studies right away. The
> >> consequences of inadvertently affecting the monsoon are very serious
> >> indeed, and we need to accurately model the teleconnections before making
> >> actionable proposals.
>
> >> My understanding is that this needs a high res GCM model to resolve this
> >> effect. I hope a group can run this.
>
> >> A
>
> >> http://mmacc...@comcast.net> > wrote:
> >> ****
> >> http://johnnissen2...@gmail.com> <http://johnnissen2...@gmail.com> >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> ****
> >> Hi Oliver,
>
> >> I attended the Planet Under Pressure conference, for the session on
> >> geoengineering governance. A cynic would regard most of the speakers as
> >> people who had found a nice subject for academic study, and were not
> >> particularly interested in whether geoengineering was actually required!
> >> But let me move on from cynicism.
>
> >> I take John Gorman's point that the problem we face is essentially an
> >> engineering problem, quoting the economist Robert Samuelson who said:
>
> >> http://OliverMor...@economist.com> > wrote:
> >> ****
> >> Do philosophers have to be service providers -- can't they simply be
> >> doing philosophy on a topic they find interesting? And if they are service
> >> providers to whom are they providing their services (who is "us" in Ken's
> >> post). Society at large, or natural scientists involved in geoengineering
> >> research, or some other entity?
>
> >> On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Ken Caldeira <
> >> ought*, while recognizing that much of language embodies both fact and
>
> >> Think of the use of a term like 'enhances' that implicitly contains a
> >> export' are we also asserting that 'ocean fertilization *enhances*carbon export'? Can I agree we the first assertion and disagree with the
> >> statement and when we are implicitly presenting a value judgment.
>
> >> ========================
>
> >> “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many
> >> different things.”
> >> “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be
> >> master that’s all.”
>
> >> On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Ben Hale <bh...@colorado.edu <
> >> http://bh...@colorado.edu> <http://bh...@colorado.edu> > wrote:
> >> I guess a philosopher should probably pipe in here.
>
> >> I work a fair bit on ethics and geoengineering. Most of what I've been
> >> doing has been oriented around getting a clearer sense of what problem
> >> geoengineering is supposedly a response to. There's a prevailing
> >> assumption, for instance, that we well understand the problem with climate
> >> change, but I think this is far from clear. Supposedly, the problem with
> >> climate change is that the climate will change, and presumably this will be
> >> a change for the worse. I don't disagree that the change will be for the
> >>http://spot.colorado.edu/%7Ebhale/Geoengineering_and_Moral_Hazard_web...>
> >> <
> >>http://spot.colorado.edu/%7Ebhale/Geoengineering_and_Moral_Hazard_web...>
> >> 2. “Getting the Bad Out: Remediation Technologies and Respect for
> >> Others” The Environment: Philosophy, Science, and Ethics. Eds. Kabasenche,
> >> W.B., O'Rourke, M., and Slater, M. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Forthcoming,
> >> 2012.
> >>http://spot.colorado.edu/%7Ebhale/Getting_the_Bad_Out_MIT_draft_singl...>
> >> <
> >>http://spot.colorado.edu/%7Ebhale/Getting_the_Bad_Out_MIT_draft_singl...>
> >> 3. “Non-renewable Resources and the Inevitability of Outcomes,”
> >> The Monist, 94(1), July 2011.
> >>http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2011.28.pdf
>
> >> 4. “Carbon Sequestration, Ocean Fertilization, and the Problem of
> >> Permissible Pollution” (with Lisa Dilling), Science, Technology, and Human
> >> Values. 36(2): 190-212. 2011.
> >> 5. “Remediation and Respect: Do Remediation Technologies Alter Our
> >> Responsibility?” (with Bill Grundy), Environmental Values. 18(4). 2009.
> >> 6. “You say 'solution', I say 'pollution': Ocean fertilization is
> >> a fishy solution to a whale of a problem,” Guest commentary, Science
> >> Progress, August 18, 2009.
> >>http://scienceprogress.org/2009/08/ocean-fertilization-ethics/
>
> >> I have a few other pieces in various stages of progress as well. I’m
> >> happy to share.
>
> >> Beyond this, there’s some really great stuff coming out now from a
> >> number of other sources. Christopher Preston has convened a volume on the
> >> Ethics of Solar Radiation Management, we’re publishing a series of essays
>
> >> These bibliographies compiled by Preston should prove helpful:
>
> >> http://www.umt.edu/ethics/resourcecenter/default.php
>
> >> http://www.umt.edu/ethics/resourcecenter/bibliography/ethics.php
>
> >> Enjoy!
>
> >> Best,
>
> >> Ben
>
> >> Benjamin Hale
>
> >> Assistant Professor
>
> >> Philosophy and Environmental Studies
>
> >> University of Colorado, Boulder
>
> >> tel:303%20735-3624 <303%20735-3624>> <tel:303%20735-3624<303%20735-3624>>
> >> ; Fax: 303 735-1576 <tel:303%20735-1576 <303%20735-1576>> <
> >> tel:303%20735-1576 <303%20735-1576>> <tel:303%20735-1576<303%20735-1576>>
> >> <http://kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> <
>
> >> +1 650 704 7212 <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212 <%2B1%20650%20704%207212>>
> >> <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212 <%2B1%20650%20704%207212>> <
> >> tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212 <%2B1%20650%20704%207212>>
> >> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab<
> >>http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab>
>
> >> Sent from a limited-typing keyboard
>
> >> http://omeconom...@gmail.com> <http://omeconom...@gmail.com> <
>
> >> > I agree with Ninad; philosophy feeds on novelty in its continual
>
> >> > reassessments; it doesn't assimilate it in a serial model of progress.
>
> >> > Many philosophical problems are not solved (though they may be moved
>
> >> > outside the realm of philosophy by other developments), and few are
>
> >> > novel. There's a relevant quotation from Wittgenstein:
>
> >> > “Philosophy has made no progress? If somebody scratches where it
>
> >> > itches, does that count as progress? If not, does that mean it wasn’t
>
> >> > an authentic scratch? Not an authentic itch? Couldn’t this response to
>
> >> > the stimulus go on for quite a long time until a remedy for itching is
>
> >> > found?”
>
> >> > Geoengineering may be a new itch for philosophy to scratch, and
>
> >> > scratching is not an inappropriate response to itches.
>
> >> > And again as Ninad said, changes in the way science views the world
>
> >> > may change the way we philosophise. Parfitt's notion of
>
> >> > intergeneratonal justice (which is clearly relevant to geoengineering
>
> >> > and climate issues) clearly rests on seeing what makes a person
>
> >> > through a particular biological lens (see
>
> >> >http://ijdb.auzigog.com/concept/parfit%E2%80%99s-paradox<
> >>http://ijdb.auzigog.com/concept/parfit%E2%80%99s-paradox>
>
> >> > )
>
> >> > On Apr 7, 10:47 pm, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com <
> >> http://voglerl...@gmail.com> <http://voglerl...@gmail.com> <
>
> >> >>>>> Having but an undergraduate degree in Philosophy, you can forgive
>
> >> >>>>> me
>
> >> >>> for
>
> >> >>>>> asking stupid questions, but ...
>
> >> >>>>> Does geoengineering raise any ethical issues not already
>
> >> >>>>> considered by historical figures such as Aristotle, Hume, Kant,
> >> and so on?
>
> >> >>>>> Isn't the ethics of making decisions that affect others not
>
> >> >>>>> involved in making the decisions a problem as old as humanity?
>
> >> >>>>> I just don't understand how there is anything new here for
> >> philosophy.
>
> >> >>>>> Surely there are
>
> >> >> ...
>
> >> >> read more »
>
> >> > --
>
> >> > 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 <
> >>http://geoengi...@googlegroups.com> <
> >>http://geoengi...@googlegroups.com> <
>
> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <
> >>http://geoengineering+unsub...@googlegroups.com> <
> >> mailto:geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com<geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com>>
>
> >> > For more options, visit this group at
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en<
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en> .
>
>
> >> ****
>
> >> ****
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >> Groups "geoengineering" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com <
> >>http://geoengi...@googlegroups.com> .
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <
> >> mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>
>
> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >> Groups "geoengineering" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com <
> >>http://geoengi...@googlegroups.com> .
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <
> >> ****
> >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
> >> --
> >> 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 <
> >>http://geoengi...@googlegroups.com> .
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <
> >> mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>
>
> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >> --
> >> 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
> >> --
> >> 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
>
> >> -- ****
>
> >> *Michael Hayes*****
>
> >> *360-708-4976*****
>
> >>http://www.voglerlake.com****
>
> >> ****
>
> >> ** **
Ken Caldeira
Long Cao, Govindasamy Bala, and I may have the deepest climate modeling collaboration in the world spanning these countries. While I can only speak for myself, I think we all feel that climate science knows no national boundaries.
Andrew Lockley
Ken
Whilst I broadly agree with you on the issue of food security under global geoengineering, I'm not sure that this carries to regional schemes. What has been proposed on this list, with some degree of serious consideration, is the regional geoengineering of the Arctic in isolation - with either direct sulphur or MCB approaches being used to effect this.
My understanding is that there has not, as yet, been a sufficient range of studies done which would allow us to address with confidence the food security situation resulting from this kind of intervention. The threat to the food supply may come specifically from failures in the monsoon caused by a movement of the ITCZ, or perhaps from other, as yet unexplored teleconnections.
AFAIK, the studies which have been done to date do not exclude the possibility that a *regional* geoengineering scheme may indeed 'threaten the food supply of billions'. Even if global food supply were to rise, distribution cannot be assured - especially to subsistence rural communities with no real infrastructure for food retail and distribution. This is further exacerbated by the potentially sudden changes to weather which may happen as a result of AGW. Can we really react to sudden droughts, etc. from a geopolitical point of view?
Even very temporary disruption to the food supply can kill many people rapidly. The famine in E. Africa is testament to this. Comparatively few people live in E. Africa, whereas a change to the productivity of Asian farming could be much more likely to cause a globally-significant famine.
I am not trying to be alarmist, but I personally wouldn't 'bet the farm' on there not being potentially dangerous disruption to the global food supply from regional geoengineering. Maybe I'm just ignorant of the science, but my personal view remains that we need to more robustly model the climate teleconnections, vegetation changes and resulting supply-chain impacts before we can be confident that we've taken reasonable steps to exclude these risk.
Finally, I'd generally urge caution on over-reliance on modelling. The loss of Arctic sea ice itself suggest that we have a poor general ability to model secondary climate effects
A
Gregory Benford
Mike MacCracken
1. It may well be that it is limits in representing the forcings in the Arctic that are contributing to the actual meltback of sea ice being a bit more rapid than models have been simulating (and just to note that model representations of sea ice are improving, and discrepancy has, as I understand it, been going down). The forcings that are perhaps not being adequately represented include black carbon, reductions in sulfate loading due to reductions in SO2 emissions in North America and Europe/FSU, tropospheric ozone, etc.
2. While I wholeheartedly agree that we need a lot more modeling studies on this, I think you may be suffering from too much looking at Mercator projections of the world’s geography. Compared to the dynamics of the monsoons and hydrologic cycle, the Arctic is a pretty small region (e.g., Greenland is half the size of India, not near an order of magnitude bigger as appears on Mercator projections), which is why it might be possible to actually cause a change there. We do need to look at it closely, but, while the ITCZ seasonal cycling may be somewhat affected, Arctic interventions would not be shifting the solar input and its seasonal variations over most of the Earth and so ocean and land temperatures are not greatly changed, and it would be quite surprising if the hydrologic cycle were shifted so much as to be affecting billions of people, especially billions of people more than might be affected by unrestrained GHG warming.
Mike
On 4/12/12 10:26 PM, "Gregory Benford" <xben...@gmail.com> wrote:
Andrew sums it up:
Finally, I'd generally urge caution on over-reliance on modelling. The loss of Arctic sea ice itself suggest that we have a poor general ability to model secondary climate effects.
The alternative to modeling of course is experiment, built up in scale and intensity, and in the air.
Gregory
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com> wrote:
Ken
Whilst I broadly agree with you on the issue of food security under global geoengineering, I'm not sure that this carries to regional schemes. What has been proposed on this list, with some degree of serious consideration, is the regional geoengineering of the Arctic in isolation - with either direct sulphur or MCB approaches being used to effect this.
My understanding is that there has not, as yet, been a sufficient range of studies done which would allow us to address with confidence the food security situation resulting from this kind of intervention. The threat to the food supply may come specifically from failures in the monsoon caused by a movement of the ITCZ, or perhaps from other, as yet unexplored teleconnections.
AFAIK, the studies which have been done to date do not exclude the possibility that a *regional* geoengineering scheme may indeed 'threaten the food supply of billions'. Even if global food supply were to rise, distribution cannot be assured - especially to subsistence rural communities with no real infrastructure for food retail and distribution. This is further exacerbated by the potentially sudden changes to weather which may happen as a result of AGW. Can we really react to sudden droughts, etc. from a geopolitical point of view?
Even very temporary disruption to the food supply can kill many people rapidly. The famine in E. Africa is testament to this. Comparatively few people live in E. Africa, whereas a change to the productivity of Asian farming could be much more likely to cause a globally-significant famine.
I am not trying to be alarmist, but I personally wouldn't 'bet the farm' on there not being potentially dangerous disruption to the global food supply from regional geoengineering. Maybe I'm just ignorant of the science, but my personal view remains that we need to more robustly model the climate teleconnections, vegetation changes and resulting supply-chain impacts before we can be confident that we've taken reasonable steps to exclude these risk.
Finally, I'd generally urge caution on over-reliance on modelling. The loss of Arctic sea ice itself suggest that we have a poor general ability to model secondary climate effects
A
On Apr 12, 2012 2:57 PM, "Ken Caldeira" <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu> wrote:
Every study that has used a reasonable metric of climate damage and a 'reasonable' amount of deflection of sunlight has concluded that climate overall is brought much closer back to the pre-industrial state but that you are left with increased CO2-fertilization.
The only study done to date explicitly focusing on crop yields has concluded that crop yields would likely go up and not down.
See, for examples:
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_research/Pongratz_Lobell.html
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_research/BanWeiss_Caldeira.html
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_research/Govindasamy_Thompson.html
Also, Kate Ricke's work has concluded that for most reasonable climate change metrics, if any party acted in their own self-interest every party would be better off than if no party had acted. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n8/full/ngeo915.html
We have made YouTube videos about some of these studies:
- Climate sensitivity and effectiveness of solar radiation management: Dr. Katharine L. Ricke (3:09) <http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_Videotranscripts/Ricke_Rowlands.html>
- Crop yields in a geoengineered climate: Dr. Julia Pongratz (4:02) <http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_Videotranscripts/Pongratz_Lobell.html>
- Crop yields in a geoengineered climate: Ken Caldeira (2:28) <http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_Videotranscripts/Pongratz_Lobell2.html>
This "threatens food supply of billions" stuff is completely unsupported by any rigorous analysis whatsoever. If anyone's food supply is threatened, it will be a result of institutional failures associated with food distribution, not because of lack of food supply.
_______________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212> kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
Currently visiting Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) <http://www.iass-potsdam.de/>
and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Resarch (PIK) <http://www.pik-potsdam.de/> in Potsdam, Germany.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Gregory Benford <xben...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's worth noting that the modeling result of a diminished monsoon isn't a highly reliable prediction.
Also, the monsoon is not in any way optimal for agriculture or anything else. The biggest damage it causes is through flooding, ie, too much rain in a short while. Having been through some of them, I'd favor a lesser such storm.
Gregory Benford
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Ben Hale <bh...@colorado.edu> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Ben Hale <bh...@colorado.edu> wrote:
Well, again, there are many reasons to be concerned about geoengineering as a solution or response even to catastrophic outcomes, including those with a reasonable risk, “however small.” The “however smallness” of the risk mostly serves to defeat the argument that geoengineering ought to be pursued on grounds that we will be averting catastrophe. I do not follow how a GE technology, with "however small" and reasonable risk and one which is capable of responding to an environmental catastrohy, is defeated by its bignin nature. There are many courses of action that carry risks of catastrophe, however small—genetic modification, CERN research, nuclear testing, military escalation, and even geoengineering itself. Ought we to take extraordinary steps to pursue these projects, or to avoid pursuing them, given that the threat of catastrophe is real, though the risk small? Clearly, the likelihood of the outcome matters, and it will not suffice to say that any risk, however small, authorizes geoengineering. This seems to be nothing more than a personal view of the risk value. I personaly believe that the Arctic Methane Risk as being a vary high order of thing(s) to worry about. You seem to view the risk of a tipping point as something which has a low probability and will go away if we paint our roofs white. Unfortunatly, there is little consensious as to the true level of risk and so there is little clearity as to the strenght of needed action. Until we have a better understanding of the true risk level, we only have personal views. It is not defensable to put such personal views out as a basis for ethical authority. And, I am as guilty on that count as many other are.
No. It’s an counterfactual conditional. If it’s the case, then… I personally don’t believe the risk is small.
A similar concern applies even to cases of “significant risk.” In the case of geoengineering, the significant risk is only a ceteris paribus risk. Fortunately for us, everything is not ceteris paribus. The future is not only uncertain, but also indeterminate. It is not as though we have geoengineering and only geoengineering as options at our disposal. We have many options, including aggressive mitigation, aggressive adaptation, and even aggressive omission (just rolling the dice and allowing the significant risk of catastrophe to play out). Theoreticaly, these are all forms of GE. In the extream case, if we "roll the dice" and allow the possability of a tipping point to just play out, we will simply be GE the planet (perfectly for) bacteria and algae. Little more will be on this planet. Why pursue the most dramatic and totalizing course of action when there are so many other options? We don’t have an argument for choosing the most dramatic and totalizing course of action. Therefore, the position can’t be defended on grounds either that there is even a “significant” risk. Is this (do every thing but GE position) not just as much a 'dramatic and totalizing course of action' as geoengineering? Also, I can not understand how the potential extenction of most life forms on this planet, through a tipping point, is not grounds for defense of GE developement and eventual deployment.
If you think these are all forms of GE, then you’ve got a cavernously wide view of GE. If you have such a wide view of GE, then there is no ethical question about GE. It’s either permissible or obligatory or forbidden or a foregone conclusion (depending on your view of such actions). In other words, you’re begging the question. Ought we to geoengineer? Your answer to this question cannot be: geoengineering is permissible because everything we do is geoengineering.
We also oughtn’t to assume that just because some course of action is authorized that therefore all courses of action are thereby authorized. Just because maybe some geoengineering technology may be permissible, for instance, does not and cannot authorize all forms of geoengineering. More concretely and for example, just because it may be permissible to paint our roofs and highways white, doesn’t mean that it is therefore also permissible to shoot aerosols into the troposphere to achieve the same effect. These are different technologies, with different deployment features, and must be assessed differently. That is fully understood by most folks researching this field of thought.
Doesn’t sound like it to me.
Sorry to disappoint, but you’ll need stronger arguments than these if you want to say either (a) that it’s permissible or, more strongly, (b) that it’s obligatory. I enjoyed reading your personal opinion.
Cf: Socrates.
Benjamin Hale
Assistant Professor
Philosophy <http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy> and Environmental Studies <http://envs.colorado.edu/>
University of Colorado, Boulder
Tel: 303 735-3624 <tel:303%20735-3624> ; Fax: 303 735-1576 <tel:303%20735-1576>
http://www.practicalreason.com <http://www.practicalreason.com/>
http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com <http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com/>
Ethics, Policy & Environment <http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cepe>
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike MacCracken
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 10:08 AM
To: John Nissen
Cc: Andrew Lockley; Stephen Salter; Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Ethics of Geoengineering (anything new?)
Dear John—It seems to me that trying to make such clean distinctions as ethical or unethical is neither going to be possible nor to be an approach that attracts adherents. We are all in quite compromised positions given our present and past reliance on fossil fuel use and casting aspersions is not going to be seen as an approach that is appreciated or effective, especially in that it will be imposing significant requirements (and possibly other unintended impacts) on, particularly, future generations. What scientists try to do, to the limits of our abilities and capabilities, is to illuminate the situation being faced and the implications and consequences of possible choices. There can be many aspects of determining a course of action (or inaction) other than the scientific aspects (and at this point, the scientific and technological aspects alone are still in flux), and the discussions on ethics and governance (and more) are shining light on many other aspects to be considered. While we will never have perfect knowledge on any of this, it seems to me it is going to be much more effective helping to inform others by refining the understanding and uncertainties than darkly characterizing others who are similarly concerned about the seriousness of our predicament and also trying to work toward promoting a better future for us all.
Mike
On 4/11/12 11:40 AM, "John Nissen" <johnnis...@gmail.com <http://johnnis...@gmail.com> > wrote:
Hi all,
I'd like to support an excellent posting earlier on this thread, from which I'd like to quote:
"The risk, however small, of a Permian scale catastrophe as a result of anthropogenic climate change, and the potential need for geoengineering to avert it, illustrates that geoengineering may in fact be the biggest ethical issue ever, opening the existential problem of human planetary survival."
I don't see how anybody could argue with this. Furthermore there is a significant risk that a catastrophe on this scale could happen as a result of Arctic warming, sea ice collapse and methane release. Thus those who oppose geoengineering to cool the Arctic, save the sea ice and dampen the methane emissions have to consider whether they are taking a ethical position.
Cheers,
John
---
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Mike MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net <http://mmac...@comcast.net> > wrote:
Dear Andrew—As I recall, at least one of the Hadley scenarios for just GHGs had Amazonian vegetation dying away, so comparative evaluation could be very interesting—we do have to remember the decision is between GHG without GE (and there are multiple scenarios for this) and GHG with GE (and there are many GE possibilities as well, at least some of which can be tuned to minimize at least some types of impacts—making such choices, of course, will not be without controversy, some real and likely some speculative and inflammatory, etc.).
Best, Mike
On 4/11/12 7:21 AM, "Andrew Lockley" <and...@andrewlockley.com <http://and...@andrewlockley.com> <http://and...@andrewlockley.com> > wrote:
It's the imbalance of polar temperatures which is a cause for concern - a geoengineered arctic on its own. The result is a potential geographic shift of the ITCZ which could have dramatic effects on regional vegetation.
If we are to engineer only the arctic we need to be sure this won't mess up other parts of the climate system.
I hope Mike's model run will involve a range of forcings up to very large interventions, to detect any potential tipping points.
Putting the output through a vegetation model will hopefully give us some really useful info.
A
On Apr 11, 2012 11:38 AM, "Stephen Salter" <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk <http://S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk> <http://S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk> > wrote:
Andrew
If geoengineering in the Arctic to restore previous Arctic temperatures is going to mess up monsoons what does John Shepherd say will happen to monsoons with dramatically increased Arctic temperatures?
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
Institute for Energy Systems
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL
Scotland
Tel +44 131 650 5704 <tel:%2B44%20131%20650%205704> <tel:%2B44%20131%20650%205704> <tel:%2B44%20131%20650%205704>
Mobile 07795 203 195
www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs> <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs> <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs>
Tel: 303 735-3624 <tel:303%20735-3624> <tel:303%20735-3624> <tel:303%20735-3624> <tel:303%20735-3624> ; Fax: 303 735-1576 <tel:303%20735-1576> <tel:303%20735-1576> <tel:303%20735-1576> <tel:303%20735-1576>
http://www.practicalreason.com
http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com
Ethics, Policy & Environment
-----Original Message-----
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com <http://geoengi...@googlegroups.com> <http://geoengi...@googlegroups.com> <http://geoengi...@googlegroups.com> [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 6:04 AM
To: omeco...@gmail.com <http://omeco...@gmail.com> <http://omeco...@gmail.com> <http://omeco...@gmail.com>
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Ethics of Geoengineering (anything new?)
I think I simply use the word 'philosophy' different than most modern philosophers.
Just as I think of mathematicians developing new mathematical theory while the rest of us apply existing theory to do calculations aimed at solving real world pproblems, I thought philosophers were developing new general theory and the rest of were applying this theory in our own moral calculations.
It seems to me that alot of what is beig called 'philosphy' is people trying to do moral calculations.
Often math progresses because a calculational need arises for which there is no existig relevant mathematical theory and this spurs the mathematicians to develop new theory
It seems to me that the ethics of decision making when decisions affect others not involved in the decision making is a problem as old as the hills.
I just don't see how this itch is going to need a scratch of a different kind. Aren't existig types of scratches are sufficient? I will be suprised if geoengineering will really be an irritant that can spur philosophical innovation. Not impossible, but I am dubious.
In contrast, I do see how neuroscience can perhaps act a an tch that promotes new types if philosophical scratches.
Ken Caldeira
kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu <http://kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu> <http://kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu> <http://kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu> <mailto:kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
+1 650 704 7212 <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212> <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212> <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212> <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212>
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com <http://geoengi...@googlegroups.com> <http://geoengi...@googlegroups.com> <http://geoengi...@googlegroups.com> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <http://geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com> <http://geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com> <http://geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com> <mailto:geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en <http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <http://geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com> <http://geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com> <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <http://geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com> <http://geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com> .
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <http://geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com> <http://geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com> <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
Nathan Currier
In Ken's 'white paper' on arctic geoengineering, the quantity
of SO2 used was hardly larger than one single large US coal plant
(about 33% bigger than the largest US plants, I think).
I entirely agree that what you are bringing up should be looked into
thoroughly,
as too often things that have looked hopeful in the past have turned
out to have serious
problems upon closer examination, but saying that no study has
excluded such potential harm
(when no such study has yet been undertaken, isn't that right?)
doesn't really suggest that there's
any particular reason to expect that such harm is likely,
either......
All best,
Nathan
>
>
>
> > Every study that has used a reasonable metric of climate damage and a
> > 'reasonable' amount of deflection of sunlight has concluded that climate
> > overall is brought much closer back to the pre-industrial state but that
> > you are left with increased CO2-fertilization.
>
> > The only study done to date explicitly focusing on crop yields has
> > concluded that crop yields would likely go up and not down.
>
> > See, for examples:
>
>
> >http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_research/BanWeiss_C...
>
> >http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_research/Govindasam...
>
> > change metrics, if any party acted in their own self-interest every party
> > would be better off than if no party had acted.
> >http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n8/full/ngeo915.html
>
> > We have made YouTube videos about some of these studies:
>
> > Dr. Katharine L. Ricke (3:09)<http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_Videotranscripts/Ri...>
> > - Crop yields in a geoengineered climate: Dr. Julia Pongratz (4:02)<http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_Videotranscripts/Po...>
> > - Crop yields in a geoengineered climate: Ken Caldeira (2:28)<http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_Videotranscripts/Po...>
> > This "threatens food supply of billions" stuff is completely unsupported
> > by any rigorous analysis whatsoever. If anyone's food supply is
> > threatened, it will be a result of institutional failures associated with
> > food distribution, not because of lack of food supply.
>
> > _______________
> > Ken Caldeira
>
> > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> >http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
>
> > *Currently visiting * Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS)<http://www.iass-potsdam.de/>
>
> > *and *Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Resarch (PIK)<http://www.pik-potsdam.de/>
> > *in Potsdam, Germany.*
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Gregory Benford <xbenf...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> It's worth noting that the modeling result of a diminished monsoon isn't
> >> a highly reliable prediction.
>
> >> Also, the monsoon is not in any way optimal for agriculture or anything
> >> else. The biggest damage it causes is through flooding, ie, too much rain
> >> in a short while. Having been through some of them, I'd favor a lesser such
> >> storm.
>
> >> Gregory Benford
>
> >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Ben Hale <bh...@colorado.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Ben Hale <bh...@colorado.edu> wrote:***
> >>> *
> >>> Well, again, there are many reasons to be concerned about geoengineering
> >>> as a solution or response even to catastrophic outcomes, including those
> >>> with a reasonable risk, “however small.” The “however smallness” of the
> >>> risk mostly serves to defeat the argument that geoengineering ought to be
> >>> pursued on grounds that we will be averting catastrophe. I do not
> >>> follow how a GE technology, with "however small" and reasonable risk and
> >>> one which is capable of responding to an environmental catastrohy, is
> >>> defeated by its bignin nature. There are many courses of action that
> >>> carry risks of catastrophe, however small—genetic modification, CERN
> >>> research, nuclear testing, military escalation, and even geoengineering
> >>> itself. Ought we to take extraordinary steps to pursue these projects, or
> >>> to avoid pursuing them, given that the threat of catastrophe is real,
> >>> though the risk small? Clearly, the likelihood of the outcome matters, and
> >>> it will not suffice to say that any risk, however small, authorizes
> >>> geoengineering. This seems to be nothing more than a personal view of
> >>> the risk value. I personaly believe that the Arctic Methane Risk as being a
> >>> vary high order of thing(s) to worry about. You seem to view the risk of a
> >>> tipping point as something which has a low probability and will go away if
> >>> we paint our roofs white. Unfortunatly, there is little consensious as to
> >>> the true level of risk and so there is little clearity as to the strenght
> >>> of needed action. Until we have a better understanding of the true risk
> >>> level, we only have personal views. It is not defensable to put such
> >>> guilty on that count as many other are. ****
> >>> No. It’s an counterfactual conditional. If it’s the case, then… I
> >>> A similar concern applies even to cases of “significant risk.” In the
> >>> *ceteris paribus*. The future is not only uncertain, but also
> >>> geoengineering as options at our disposal. We have many options, including
> >>> aggressive mitigation, aggressive adaptation, and even aggressive omission
> >>> (just rolling the dice and allowing the significant risk of catastrophe to
> >>> play out). Theoreticaly, these are all forms of GE. In the extream
> >>> case, if we "roll the dice" and allow the possability of a tipping point to
> >>> just play out, we will simply be GE the planet (perfectly for) bacteria and
> >>> algae. Little more will be on this planet. Why pursue the most dramatic
> >>> and totalizing course of action when there are so many other options? We
> >>> don’t have an argument for choosing the most dramatic and totalizing course
> >>> of action. Therefore, the position can’t be defended on grounds either that
> >>> there is even a “significant” risk. Is this (do every thing
> >>> but GE position) not just as much a 'dramatic and totalizing course of
> >>> action' as geoengineering? Also, I can not understand how the potential
> >>> extenction of most life forms on this planet, through a tipping point, is
> >>> If you think these are all forms of GE, then you’ve got a cavernously
> >>> wide view of GE. If you have such a wide view of GE, then there is no
> >>> ethical question about GE. It’s either permissible or obligatory or
> >>> forbidden or a foregone conclusion (depending on your view of such
> >>> actions). In other words, you’re begging the question. Ought we to
> >>> geoengineer? Your answer to this question cannot be: geoengineering is
> >>> We also oughtn’t to assume that just because some course of action is
> >>> authorized that therefore all courses of action are thereby authorized.
> >>> Just because maybe some geoengineering technology may be permissible, for
> >>> instance, does not and cannot authorize all forms of geoengineering. More
> >>> concretely and for example, just because it may be permissible to paint our
> >>> roofs and highways white, doesn’t mean that it is therefore also
> >>> permissible to shoot aerosols into the troposphere to achieve the same
> >>> effect. These are different technologies, with different deployment
> >>> features, and must be assessed differently. That is fully understood by
>
> >>> Doesn’t sound like it to me.****
> >>> Sorry to disappoint, but you’ll
>
>
> read more »