Doug, Interesting question. I'd have to think about it more; it's probably more complicated than it appears. (What isn't?)
The basic issue is that on most ethical frameworks, one party may sometimes have the right to insist that some other party refrain from harming them, even when the latter party would benefit from doing so. To take a well-worn but dramatic example, I have a right to insist that you refrain from harvesting my organs, even if you were confident that doing so would save the lives of several other people. I certainly don't need to compensate people for refusing to give them my organs. The wrinkle is that this right may not apply when the first party is responsible for the second party's distress -- and that may be the case in your SRM scenario. Let us stipulate, for the sake of this argument, that in virtue of their fossil fuel exports, Russia and Canada bear some non-neglible responsibility for the climate change that some future SRM-seeking states are trying to counteract. If Russia and Canada oppose SRM because the warmer climate benefits them, they might not be able to defend themselves by claiming that others have no right to harm them. If they blocked SRM in that scenario, they might be obligated to compensate those who wanted to use it. That's my initial response, anyway. Does that seem sensible? David On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:39:12 PM UTC-6, Doug MacMartin wrote: > > Agree that we all need to work together. Two quick comments: > > > > 1. Just want to reiterate to the non-physical-scientists that while > it is quite plausible that some would be harmed by SRM (a trivial example > being those who want to ship through the Arctic) it is premature to assume > any specific harms from SRM, as it depends on the method, the amount, and > how it is implemented (e.g. our Nature Climate Change paper indicating that > some harms could be reduced by tailoring the distribution, along the lines > of John & Stephen’s observations that precip changes depend on where you do > MCB.) And even if you specify everything, I would at least wait for GeoMIP > analysis to understand a bit of model robustness. I only skimmed through, > but I think Peter and Toby were reasonably careful to say “could” most of > the time rather than “would” > > 2. This is a serious question, not a joke: is there an ethical > framework to ask about compensation to those who would be harmed by > blocking the use of SRM? I.e., in some hypothetical future scenario in > which there was great confidence that many people could benefit from SRM, > should those who don’t want SRM compensate those who would likely be harmed > by that decision? If not, why not? > > > > doug > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
