Mike
I agree completely with what you say which is why I am trying to get an
everywhere-to-everywhere transfer function of the side-effects of cloud
albedo control and why I am disappointed with the lack of enthusiasm
being shown by the climate modelling people to try the coded modulation
experiment described in the email I sent with my email of 20 February.
It is almost as if they did not like to get ideas from electronics
engineers, that they do not like being told that they are using the
wrong colours and map projections to show their results and that it
might be interesting to test spray variation according to the phases of
the monsoons and the el Nino cycle, which they have not yet done.
You mentioned islands in a remote area. Such places are the most likely
to be affected by rising seal levels and so we ought to think about
levels of compensation for not having geo-engineering hardware ready for
use if needed and not understanding all of its effects. I have already
seen estimates of the costs of the droughts and the probability that
they are the result on climate change. But it is not clear who is going
to pay.
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland
[email protected] Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195
WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
On 21/02/2013 17:28, Mike MacCracken wrote:
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].
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.
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
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.
