Thanks for posting this link. This was a very interesting read. I read your contribution concerning intergenerational equity and have a question on one concept. I quote:
"Unfortunately, while a commitment to SRM geoengineering approaches in lieu of effective mitigation responses might prove effective and politically palatable for our generation, future generations may not feel the same way because of the threat posed by the “termination” effect." I need help in understanding what would motivate a future generation to discard an active SRM effort due to the threat of the effects of discarding an active SRM effort. From a philosophical stand point, such a future generation, with that view, would simple be collectively suicidal. As such, should we be constrained by their irrational views (suicide is mainly considered irrational)? Your definition of intergenerational equity states "fairness in the utilization of resources between human generations * past*, *present* and *future*.". We, today, will be the "*past*" generation to this hypothetical *future* suicidal generation. Thus, the question comes to mind, in that: Do they not owe us, as a "*past*" generation, fairness in the utilization of resources (ie. SRM) if SRM is deemed by us as crucial to our generations' survival? Do we not owe them our survival so that they may even come into existence? Is there a flaw in my logic? This issue does seem to me like Schrodinger's Cat is vigorously chasing a lifeless tail! I do need help in understand the rational nature of your argument. Thanks, -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
