Hi Michael, Several responses here:
1. A future generation might have no choice in terminating an SRM approach should it technologically fail; this is certainly not beyond the pale. For example, various climatic feedback processes might ultimately denude the effectiveness of cloud brightening or particle dispersants in the stratosphere; 2. A future generation might deem the use of such technologies unethical should they be visiting grave harms on certain vulnerable populations, such as the potential for substantially denuding precipitation in southeast Asia. A nation in that region might also threaten military retaliation, compelling suspension. The point is that the consequences then would be potentially very grave in terms of the termination effect; 3. I find your view that it's this generation saving itself vs. the needs of future generations excessively reductionist. There is a third alternative, which is substantive measures by this generation to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. As the article points out, some measures, e.g. massively reducing black carbon, might be able to prevent us from crossing the critical thresholds that are often cited as a rationale for geoengineering. I want those options explored in a meaningful fashion before we are lured by the siren song of technologies that pose a substantial moral hazard, and perhaps an extremely palpable societal hazard should the termination effect be a realistic consequence of SRM deployment. wil On May 10, 11:01 pm, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
