Dear David‹Very interesting effort to summarize the ethical aspects. The problem I have with the analysis is that it seems to me to totally leave out the adverse consequences of global warming that would be alleviated. That is, the whole intent of geoengineering is to reduce risks from CO2-induced changes in climate, and your analysis seems to be commenting on SRM, in particular, in terms of just doing it without the offsetting benefit, as if it were being proposed back in the 1950s when there were ideas of melting the Arctic ice to get at the region¹s resources. The notion now is to, considering the gradual offsetting approach, to keep the climate about as it is or recently was (thus avoiding major losses of biodiversity, ice sheets, etc.) and so, if mitigation were pursued actively to keep us under, say 2.5-3 C, would be used to keep us at -.5 to 1 C above preindustrial (so much less SRM needed as compared to that to reverse a full doubling of CO2) and the idea would be to continue to phase up mitigation and CDR so one could phase out SRM over time, so there would be an exit strategy.
I would also like to offer a different perspective on this issue of uncertainties about SRM that is raised, Clive Hamilton, for example making a case of it. If we have enough confidence in the models and our understanding of the physics (and ecology, etc.) to be using our projections of the climate warming 4 C or so (hence, well into the range where models have not been tested and where the world has not been for tens of millions of years) to justify telling the world that it must get quickly get off of the fossil fuel energy system that provides 80+% of the world¹s energy--and I am on the side that is convinced of that, then I just do not understand how it can be argued that the uncertainties of SRM, using techniques that have a natural analog we can learn from, aimed at keeping the climate about as it is now (so in the range models have been tested on), can be so great that we should not consider the approach. I do not disagree that there is much to learn and that there are issues of governance and ethics involved, but it seems to me that arguing that the uncertainties in the modeling is too large just plays into the hands of the deniers on model uncertainties. My view is that we should actually be evincing confidence in the model abilities to simulate the major aspects of what would result from SRM (and CDR) and that what the model results show is that there are limits in how well GHG-induced climate change can be offset (I think these limits can likely be moderated by some clever thinking about how to do SRM) and that there are complex issues and implications of such a course (and the most complex of the governance issues may well be how to maintain the SRM effort when the public has not had to actually experience the adverse impacts that are being offset). I just think the framing to date is well off the mark. Best, Mike MacCracken On 1/26/14 12:47 AM, "Rosemary Jones" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi. > > There cannot be a problem with either of the following SRM strategies, ethical > or otherwise, and as a necessary addition to the equally essential transition > to zero carbon technologies. > > 1. Ensuring all road and runway services are balanced pale and dark, so at > least the amount of radiation reflected back from the paler surfaces is equal > to the amount entrenched in the darker ones. > > 2. Spraying an area of ice and snow bereft rock equal to that lost in the last > 50 years with chalk based solar reflective paint. > The reason why there cannot be an ethical or other sort of problem with either > of these strategies is that the first is a return to earlier SR normality, and > the second is a replication of SR conditions as they used to be before the > chaos got going. > > All that we need is a UN Climate Action Program to organize the spraying, > payment from everyone wealthy enough to the GCF, and concomitant reforestation > to provide the shade there used to be, and employing the poorest people > because that's essential in order to get the work done, and the ethical cost > of solving the climate problem. > > Rosemary Jones. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -------- > On Friday, 24 January 2014 19:26:49 UTC-8, David Morrow wrote: >> In an earlier thread, Ron had asked about ethicists' views on the differences >> between CDR and SRM. I don't know of any detailed treatment of the topic. I'd >> be grateful if anyone could point one out. For the reasons I'll explain >> below, ethicists have focused most of their attention on SRM or on specific >> methods of CDR, such as ocean fertilization. But I figured I'd take a stab at >> articulating what I see as the main differences between the ethics of CDR and >> the ethics of SRM. >> >> The following comments apply to SRM and CDR generally. Not all of the >> comments apply to all SRM or CDR technologies. I'll say a bit about that at >> the end. >> >> In general, SRM is much more ethically problematic than CDR. This is for four >> main reasons, in descending order of importance: >> >> 1. SRM involves larger, more geographically dispersed risks than CDR does. >> The magnitude of the risk matters because any decision to test or deploy SRM >> is unlikely to be unanimous, and the ethical issues involved in imposing >> risks on others increase with the magnitude of the risk. The geographical >> scope of the risk matters because imposing risks across borders raises >> questions of global political legitimacy that are not well understood. That >> is, we know much more about how such decisions ought to be settled within a >> country than across many countries. My sense is that some key risks are less >> well understood for SRM, too, which makes it harder to make good decisions. >> >> 2. CDR would (in principle) enable us to "clean up the mess we're making," >> while SRM would pass the problem on to future generations while keeping its >> worst effects at bay. Thus, SRM raises special concerns about >> intergenerational justice that CDR might not. (If, however, current >> generations built the infrastructure for CDR, pumped a lot of GHGs into the >> atmosphere, and then left future generations to pay the costs of capturing >> and sequestering the carbon, that would raise problems of intergenerational >> justice.) >> >> 3. SRM represents a greater intervention into natural systems than CDR does. >> A high-GHG world cooled by SRM is a much more heavily "managed" world than >> one that in which warming has been slowed or reversed by CDR. Some ethicists >> -- especially environmental philosophers -- think that significant >> intervention in natural processes is "pro tanto wrong" (roughly, "wrong to >> that extent"), meaning that being a significant intervention is a >> "wrong-making feature" of an act. This is *not* to say that all significant >> intervention is "wrong, all things considered." Wrong-making features can >> often be offset by other features of the act. To take a non-environmental >> example, many people would say that "being a lie" is a wrong-making feature >> of an act, but that lying to save an innocent person's life would be >> justified. To take an environmental example, large-scale agriculture >> represents a very significant intervention into natural systems, but it is >> justified (in some form) by the need to feed large numbers of people. Since >> SRM is a more significant intervention than (most forms of) CDR, it is >> ethically more problematic than (most forms of) CDR. >> >> 4. SRM is more susceptible to charges of hubris than CDR is. Sometimes this >> is expressed in terms of "playing God." Roughly, the idea is that believing >> we can manage Earth's climate through SRM requires greater confidence in our >> knowledge and technical abilities than does believing that we can capture and >> sequester carbon. Thus, it's thought that someone who claims that we can pull >> off SRM without bad side effects is more open to charges of overestimating >> our abilities than is someone who merely claims we can pull off CDR. >> >> >> The main overlap between SRM and CDR, ethically speaking, concerns the >> so-called "moral hazard" problem. This is the worry that developing SRM >> and/or CDR will cause the world to cut back their mitigation efforts. Some >> people think this is a bigger problem than others do, but I'd say it's at >> least as big a problem for CDR as it is for SRM. There are some other >> objections that apply to both SRM and CDR, but I don't think they're as >> important as the issues above. >> >> >> Finally, particular CDR technologies may share some of the ethical problems >> of SRM. Ocean fertilization comes to mind as posing large, poorly understood, >> and geographically dispersed risks. But the ethical problems with, e.g., >> ocean fertilization have to do with the mechanism by which it aims to capture >> and sequester carbon, not with the fact that it is a form of CDR per se. >> >> >> I hope the other ethicists lurking on the list will chime in on this topic. >> I'm also interested to hear from everyone else on the list. I don't think the >> ethics of CDR are all that well explored, so I expect we'll learn some new >> things from the discussion. >> >> >> David -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
