Hi Michael, Thanks for responding again. A few more thoughts above.
On May 11, 10:47 am, Michael Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for the response. > > As to 1); The principal aspects of SRM, in that they are > both technologically simple and cheap, makes the assumption of "failure" > seem unrealistic. The brakes system in my car is simple and cheap and so I > maintain it so as to not kill myself and others. If a deployed SRM effort is > shielding a future generation from outright general destruction, maintaining > and even improving the system should be expected of future generations. The > core understanding, by most knowledgeable people in this area, is that > global SRM should not be deployed until climate change becomes a direct > threat to the balance of humanity. It is an emergency response. However, > waiting for the emergency to happen before developing the means to respond > is not rational. Also, there is a large difference between surface SRM > efforts and that of stratospheric injection. Lumping them together is a > novice's mistake. * Somehow I think we know a lot more about the brake systems of cars, borne out by 100 years of experience, than the effectiveness of SRM technologies. Beyond the fact that a number of experts have acknowledged potential diminution of effectiveness (and yes, including feedback mechanisms) or downright failure, this issue can't be blithely dismissed. Plus, I think you miss the larger issue, which is the fact that a future generation might wish to no longer be under the yoke of SRM given potentially very negative impacts (e.g. impacts on monsoons or ozone depletion), yet it would be compelled to do so because of termination effects that far exceed business as usual warming impacts (that's why your argument below, that we're already geoengineering the climate via our current policies is not entirely compelling from my perspective). The point is that intergenerational equity requires us to provide future generations with free choices in terms of policymaking. SRM would require 500-1000 year deployments of technologies that future generations might consider anathema. > > The notion of un-known/hypothetical feedbacks denuding SRM efforts is > interesting. In that, it is injecting a double-false conditional into the > debate. This is more of a media tool than a scientific one. > > As to 2); We are currently doing just that! The technology which is > currently "visiting great harm on certain vulnerable populations" is the use > of fossil fuels. The sudden stoppage of that technology would have a grave > "termination effect". SRM will be needed in providing an > important transitional phase to greener energy. FF are far worse than SRM! * Not true, see analysis above. And, again, that's an infirm argument from an ethical perspective. It's an argument that gives succor to the likes of the American Enterprise Institute, who has embraced geoengineering, arguing that our choices are binary: a future ravaged by climatic effects from unstinted initiatives or the magic bullet of geoengineering. There is a third way, which is substantive reductions in emissions, using both short-term stop gap measures, e.g. a focus on reducing black carbon, and policies designed to effectuate a longer term structural decarbonization of the world economy; see McKinsey and Tellus's analyses in recent years for a highly cost-effect vision of the way forward. However, the siren song of geoengineering provides cover for entrenched fossil fuel interests to resist such policy prescriptions; we shouldn't permit this to happen. > > As to 3) I believe reductionism is important if I am dealing with a concept > which has a philosophical underpinning requiring the totality of humanity > being divided into discrete segments of time.Reductionism can only be > rationalized through reductionism. The premise that generations are separate > entities is false. Humanity is a constantly evolving or devolving phenomena. > There is no fundamental time separations within the concept of humanity. One > "time group" having ethical responsibilities to another "time group" is a > double-false argument if applied to the concept of humanity as a whole. * I'm sorry, I don't accept this analysis. The simple truth is that my child, and her children, will live a discrete existence from me after my passing, and it's incumbent upon this generation to both leave the Earth in a condition that can support their existence in a comparable fashion to that left by my predecessors, and which does not lock them into policy prescriptions that they might deem undesirable. > > With all due respects to your effort on this subject and I do want to make > it clear that this is not meant to be a personal insult. But, I can only > conclude that the field of intergenerational ethics is (at this time), by > definition, an ill-logical and purely subjective belief system of thought. > I do believe such belief systems are largely viewed as "religion" > or..."media hype". * This casting of intergenerational equity as a "religion" or "media hype" smacks of the same kind of rhetoric used by climate skeptics, though I fully acknowledge that principles of ethics and morality and religion obviously have a common heritage. As far as an atheist such as myself can embrace the tenets of a religion that recognizes the rights and interests of future generation, then I guess I found religion! wil > > Michael -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
