One more thing ... I question the use of the acronym "SAG" (Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering), less because "geoengineering" is a contested term than because the word "sag" has obvious negative connotations. Instead, I suggest using the more neutral "SAI" (Stratospheric Aerosol Injections).
Josh On Aug 24, 5:05 am, Michael Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]>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 [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.
