Regarding the interplay of present-day benefits/costs versus future benefits/costs, It is also worth comparing and contrasting emission mitigation and geo-engineering testing. In the emission mitigation case, there are certainly people who argue that mitigation today will harm their interests. (Those harms are typically based on claims of adverse economic impacts: job loss; higher energy bills; etc. Oil producing countries have even argued that they should be compensated for loss of revenues if climate protection policies lead to reduced oil consumption.) Some objectors to mitigation argue there are no benefits even to future generations, while others implicitly or explicitly argue that their present-day interests should outweigh tomorrow's harms.
In democracies we resolve these competing claims through recognized legal institutions - legislatures; executive branch agencies; courts - all of which owe their legitimacy (mileage may vary) to their origins in democratic processes. In the US especially, a lot has been written about the influence of political money on governmental institutions, particularly the Congress. Protests and occasionally civil disobedience are other methods that are employed. There are many differences with the geo-engineering context but the claimed conflict between present-day interests of some and future interests of many , is common to both g-e and mitigation. David From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike MacCracken Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:29 PM To: [email protected]; Geoengineering Cc: Doug MacMynowski Subject: Re: [geo] pre-print of forth-coming paper: Svoboda, T and Irvine, PJ, "Ethical and Technical Challenges in Compensating for Harm Due to Solar RadiationManagement Geoengineering" Just to take the issue one step further, it has come up in the area of even doing field testing. Let's suppose that we want to do a field test of the cloud brightening approach. The field test would be done at such a low level that it would not really generate present benefits (i.e., any significant counter-balancing of adverse impacts) for anyone, but let's suppose it might (though not clear how) cause some negative influence to some one-say someone on an island out in the remote area where the test is being done. Let's also suppose that the field experiment would be expected to show that this approach could be used to counter-balance significant future climate change and in that way create a large net benefit (so, yes, some relatively limited negative impacts, but many, widespread benefits (or, at least, significant reductions in anticipated adverse impacts). So the question then arises, what if the present offended party objected to the experiment going forward because of negative impacts (or possible unknown consequences)? The net present effects of this experiment would be negative, but there would be great potential benefits in the future that would be foregone. In some sense, for the close-in direct consequences, this is likely not unlike the testing of new medicines, so there would be a need for informed consent and damages. While there may be precedents for the potential direct damages, a key question would be how to deal with the less well-defined unknowns and how does one consider the benefits of gaining knowledge about potentially achieving net benefits (so, yes, some damages) in the future. Pretty clearly, climate engineering will not go forward without testing, and testing raises the question of how to weigh/consider potential near-term negative consequences to gain confidence in an approach that would provide net benefits in the future. Basically, I would just suggest that we need to have social science consideration of both the issues arising around testing as well as for potential application. Mike On 2/21/13 9:28 AM, "David Morrow" <[email protected]> wrote: 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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[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. -- 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.
