One of the reasons a fear of unilateral action seems a somewhat unfounded is that an actor would have to keep up this global, unilateral activity for a considerable amount of time-- i.e. decades to centuries to have any sort of prolonged and meaningful effect on global temperatures.
I cannot imagine such a theoretical actor that could deploy SAI in a concerted effort (likely requiring multiple, if not many, injection points) and at the precise locations necessary (few of which are likely to be conveniently within their sovereign territory)-- more or less continuously-- over an extended period of time, without being forced to make it a multilateral process. Shouldn't there at least be a nod in the language of the article to the challenges such an actor would face, and their probability of this really being a risk? Other objections seem to be rather thin. Take for instance the claim that "implementing SAG puts future generations at risk of SAG being discontinued abruptly, which can result in rapid and dramatic climate change that leads to severe economic damages for those future generations (Goes et al., 2010)" Really? Well, clearly we have the reverse situation when volcanoes go off. Sudden, rapid and dramatic change of aerosol forcing in the atmosphere--so these types of phenomenon are clearly not unknown While the effects are certainly noticeable, it's clearly not armageddon. In your imagined scenario, the "severe economic damages for future generations" imply that the SAG forcing was a beneficial mitigation, and it's the absence of it that's the problem--not the suddenness of the change (given that the suddenness of volcano inputs are not damaging for generations-- only roughly for the time period that the soot is in the air). As Ken is fond of pointing out-- the risk that you might conceivably not be able to continue your dialysis treatment isn't a reason not to pursue it in the first place. The suddenness of terminating it may be a shock to the system, but nothing like the shock of never having undertaken it! It seems unlikely that if this is a key activity for mankind, we'll find a way to continue to do it. After all, it's critical that we find a way to plant wheat and rice every year-- without them, large portions of the planet would starve-- but we don't fret that somehow we're going to forget how or be strangely incapable of it. Other objections here seem similarly misplaced. The idea that the question of intergenerational justice might be one where we're *disadvantaging* future generations seems likewise odd. After all, the whole reason this is being proposed is in large part because of concerns about the well being of future generations. Sure.. it's possible that in some regional locations the proposed or actual forcing might result in a negative outcome. Just as it's clearly true that for some communities a little AGW might actually be a positive thing (wine producers in WA and BC conceivably). But on the whole, the suggested program of incremental research, followed possibly by limited testing, seem a sensible approach when we compare the risks of implementation against a world which is clearly warming in a dangerous way? It seems that the larger question is whether a global sense of intergenerational justice outweighs a perfect sense of distributive or regional justice. Who has more right? Dan On Aug 17, 1:16 pm, Josh Horton <[email protected]> wrote: > Toby, > > I'd like to focus on your third case, in which you argue that > stratospheric aerosol injections would violate principles of > procedural justice if pursued unilaterally. As you frame it, ANY > unilateral action at the international level would violate principles > of procedural justice, since non-citizens of the acting state either > (a) would not have taken part in the decision process (Rawls), or (b) > would not be able to appeal that action (Daniels and Sabin). The US > could decide to drop manna from the sky over the entire world, and by > definition this would be unilateral and hence unjust. The real > culprit, in this instance, is unilateralism rather than climate > engineering. > > Earlier this year I had an article published titled "Geoengineering > and the Myth of Unilateralism" (available free > athttp://www.stanford.edu/group/sjlsp/cgi-bin/users_images/pdfs/61_Hort...). > As the title suggests, I am deeply skeptical of the threat of > unilateral stratospheric aerosol injections (SAI), as summarized in > the following extract from the article: > > the incentive structure faced by a state interested in implementing > SAI would > strongly discourage unilateral postures that dismissed the need for > international agreement and > coordination. Any country considering unilateral deployment would find > itself tangled in a web > of technical and political constraints and steered toward reaching > some form of global consensus. > Individual incentives may be inadequate to deter unilateralism on > their own, but their collective > weight is likely to tilt the playing field decisively in favor of > multilateral cooperation. For > instance, Country B may be sufficiently motivated to accept the costs > associated with the > termination problem and dispense with efforts to synchronize emissions > mitigation policies. But > once deployed, a large number of international actors would > effectively exercise joint control > over any injection system, frustrating any attempt by Country B to > pursue a coherent SAI policy > managed solely by its national government. Furthermore, any actor > opposed to the project could > easily (and anonymously) counter its effects using relatively simple > means such as release of > black carbon, thereby neutralizing the entire scheme. For Country B, > the costs of unilateral SAI > would exceed the benefits, due to the technical limitations inherent > in unilateral deployment of > such technology, and as a consequence, interest in SAI would require a > multilateral approach. > The net result is that states are unlikely to view unilateral > deployment as a sound, effective > policy option. > > If unilateralism is the real problem, and unilateralism is unlikely in > the case of stratospheric aerosols, then this form of climate > engineering is much less problematic than you contend, at least from > the procedural justice point of view. > > Josh Horton > [email protected]http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ > > On Aug 16, 10:44 pm, Michael Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Please allow me a few comments. > > > "However, SAG faces > > obstacles to meeting these requirements, so it is incumbent upon proponents > > of SAG > > either to present a version of SAG that is distributively just or to argue > > why SAG ought to > > be implemented despite its ethical shortcomings." Prevention of a methane > > tipping point would seem distributively just for life in general. > > "More generally, it is arguably intergenerationally unjust for present > > generations to bring about states of affairs that are distributively unjust > > for future generations. In other words, one requirement of intergenerational > > justice is that present persons not compromise the distributive justice of > > future generations." Prevention of a methane tipping point does seem to > > comply with this concept regardless of the arguable validity of the concept. > > On the subject of procedural justice; > > > "Unilateral SAG violates Rawls’ theory of procedural justice, which holds > > that a policy is procedurally just only if all persons affected by that > > decision have the opportunity to contribute to that decision process." > > > The current UN panel on Bio Diversity would seem to be in violation > > of Rawls' theory. In fact, no known treaty or policy has ever complied with > > this theory. The use of representatives to "contribute to that decision > > process" is simply the exercise of political policy. > > > Thank you for your work and I hope to see this paper vigorously debated by > > the group. > > > Michael > > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Toby Svoboda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yes, the link provided by Masa is an up-to-date version (aside from some > > > formatting changes, etc. in the published version). > > > > Toby Svoboda > > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Masa Sugiyama < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Here's the manuscript. (I don't know if this is the most up-to-date.) > > >>http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/~kzk10/Svoboda_PAQ_11.pdf > > > >> -Masa > > > >> On 8月16日, 午前1:04, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > Is it possible for someone to post the article here? > > > >> > D > > > >> > On Aug 15, 8:37 am, Toby Svoboda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > List members might be interested in our recent article on ethics and > > >> > > geoengineering: > > > >> > > Svoboda, T., K. Keller, M. Goes, and N. Tuana (2011), "Sulfate > > >> > > Aerosol > > >> > > Geoengineering: The Question of Justice", *Public Affairs Quarterly* > > >> 25:3, > > >> > > 157-80,http://paq.press.illinois.edu/25/3/svoboda.html. > > > >> > > Although we do not take a position on whether aerosol geoengineering > > >> ought > > >> > > to be deployed, we examine some potential obstacles to such > > >> geoengineering > > >> > > satisfying requirements of distributive, intergenerational, and > > >> procedural > > >> > > justice. Feedback welcome. > > > >> > > Best Wishes, > > > >> > > Toby Svoboda > > >> > > Ph.D. Candidate > > >> > > Department of Philosophy > > >> > > The Pennsylvania State University > > >> > > 232 Sparks Building > > >> > > University Park, PA 16802 > > >> > > [email protected] > > > >> -- > > >> 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. > > > > -- > > > 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. > > > -- > > *Michael Hayes* > > *360-708-4976*http://www.voglerlake.com-Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
