Toby et al., D-5-W is a common intravenous (I.V.) fluid given to a trauma patient. It is a 5% Dextrose (sugar) solution in water. This solution helps prevent the body from converting stored body fat into needed energy (and thus preventing a strong acid influx-and thus preventing a cascade of physiological problems). Polar Stratospheric Aerosol Injection-Sulfide (PSAI-S) has somewhat of an analogy to the use of D-5-W. In that, the use of such a (simple) technique can prevent a cascade of global environmental problems. Keeping the polar regions cold can prevent the need for more...invasive...procedures.
I point this out as a means to help clarify this debate. Geoengineering has so quickly evolved, in both scientific and engineering understanding, that the broad use of a term such as "SAG" is counterproductive for use in detailed discussions. I go to this length of explanation, not as a means of correction, but as a means to help sharpen the focus of this debate. Mike points out the reasonable logic of starting slow (and early) and building up climate intervention means as conditions warrant. Others have pointed out the potential use of different aerosols in relation to different atmospheric circulation patterns to produce even seasonal effects. Your paper does not take a close look at the physical reality of just how close we are to seeing a methane tipping point. You have, however recognized that such a situation would rearrange the debate...thank you. I feel that we must focus the debate on dealing with the worst case scenario before we have the freedom to set out long term and somewhat "Idealized" standards. Crawling into a wrecked and smoldering car to simply start an I.V. of D-5-W on the bleeding driver is not good quality basic health care. But, it can lead to just that.....given time and lots of early, intelligent and cooperative work. The core concept of "Geoengineering" is not "good quality basic health care" for the planet, but simply a means and way to better care for the planet until we can move beyond fossil fuels. Unfortunately, the concept of "Geoengineering" is so new that few people truly understand the means, motives and even objectives of the science and engineering. I personally see it as Geo Trauma Care (GTC). Yes, the fossil fuel economy has traumatized this planet and I see the potential of PSAI-S as potentially being the equivalent of an emergency I.V. procedure. However, the long-term prognosis of our existence on this planet is predicated upon the universal use of renewable energy, not on the use of climate engineering. Your work (as well as Wil Burns) on raising the different ethical aspects of the debate is helping us get there. Ideally, I would like to see the debate continued with focus upon *specific* emerging science and engineering developments. Polar aerosol injection is different than "global" SAG. We must build the practical knowledge and techniques of climate engineering as the effects of the fossil fuel economy will be with us for generations. Inventing an I.V., developing D-5-W and testing the two only when the car crashes is neither reasonable nor logical. Creating social fences against climate engineering can be a close analogy. Thanks, Michael On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Toby Svoboda <tobysvob...@gmail.com>wrote: > Thank you all for the interesting and helpful feedback. > > Michael mentions a case (a methane tipping point) in which deployment of > SAG might satisfy requirements of justice. Perhaps in certain scenarios, SAG > would be (or would be part of) a just climate policy, or at least a policy > that is less unjust than other policies available in those scenarios. Our > paper is rather preliminary in the sense that it raises some ethical worries > about SAG but does not take a position on whether it ought to be deployed. > Perhaps, even with certain ethical imperfections, in some likely scenarios > SAG would be the best option from a justice perspective. I don't know > whether this would be the case. It seems that further work would be needed > to get clear on that. > > As for unilateralism, our paper does not argue that there is a high > probability of unilateral deployment but rather that such deployment would > be unjust. As you know, there are a number of papers in the literature that > discuss unilateral deployment. Josh's paper (which appeared after ours was > in press) and Dan's comments raise some interesting points. Perhaps worries > over unilateralism are overblown. That would be a welcome result from a > procedural justice perspective, although non-unilateral deployment wouldn't > necessarily be procedurally just (e.g., if some other countries, through no > fault of their own, were still excluded from having a say in whether and how > SAG gets deployed). > > Both Michael and Josh suggest that actual policies often violate the > theories of procedural justice we consider in the paper. This may well be > true, but that does not mean that those theories are false. What we actually > do and what we ought to do are distinct--we can fail to live up to standards > we should meet. Moreover, it seems that a policy could be more or less > procedurally unjust, with the latter being ethically preferable to the > former. For example, one could treat the Rawlsian principle as an > ideal--even if it is rarely complied with perfectly, some decision > procedures will come closer than others. > > Dan mentions a number of concerns, but I wouldn't characterize our paper as > containing "objections" to SAG, because we don't advocate that it ought not > to be deployed. In the sections on distributive and intergenerational > justice, we point to risks of harm associated with SAG. We think these risks > are ethically significant and should be taken into account. All things > considered, it might turn out that these are risks that should be tolerated, > but that remains to be shown in my view. > > Dan writes, "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?" We don't deny this in the paper, as we focus on > deployment rather than research. Dan also writes, "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." But even if our intentions are good > (e.g., the well-being of future persons), we can still cause substantial > harm to persons. Again, perhaps we ought to deploy SAG, e.g. because the > harm to future generations would be less if we do than if we do not. But if > so, it is my view that an argument for that would need to be made in detail. > > Many Thanks, > Toby > > -- > 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. > -- *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* http://www.voglerlake.com -- 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.
