David et. al., Dealiing with this broad scope of issues in this type of 'speed debating' is less than optimal for all. I would like to offer, however, a few thoughts.
"Michael claimed that MCB would have far fewer trans border effects than SSI. His example of Arctic cooling, though, suggests that there would still be important trans border effects (e.g., throughout the Arctic Circle), but that they would be confined to fewer countries than with global SSI. That does make the problem easier, and much closer to problems we've tackled before, but it doesn't eliminate it." (By definition, all GE concepts effect the global ecology. Limiting trans boarder complications is best made possible through CDR yet MCB can be deployed in a way which greatly limits trans boarder complications. I mentioned the Arctic as an example yet the use of any oceanic basin would be effective. Here is the original peer reviewed paper on MCB<http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1974/4217> .) "Also, I seem to recall reading about modeling studies that found surprising (to me) long-distance effects -- something like spraying in the north Pacific causing changes in a range of different places. Am I to understand that MCB could be targeted quite narrowly so as to avoid involving more than a few countries at a time?" (If you can find the study on long range effects of MCB, I'd appreciate a link. To the best of my knowledge, MCB can be highly focused and even combined with Ship Tracks <http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=66963>produced specifically for use with MCB. Far off shore regions of the oceans have a low amount of cloud condensate nuclei (CCN) available for cloud formation. Ship exhaust does provide the CCN and using carbon negitive biofuel would be the best practice for that effort. Cooling of the ocean surface, within the convergance zones, would be a direct way to reduce the serverity of super storms and extream El Ninos, as well as, provide for general SRM.) "Michael suggested that the environmental philosophers' argument about intervention assumes that "there has been.....no.....previous intervention." I hear this response a lot, but I think it's misguided. No one is assuming that there's been no previous intervention. The argument is not "let's not despoil wilderness with SRM." *That* argument would be open to the reply that the "wilderness" is already despoiled. To oversimplify, the idea is that intervening *further* in an already-despoiled system is worse than "undoing" the original intervention." (Thank you for the clarification. However, I'm still not clear on what may be considered as "undoing the original intervention"? That would seem to require CDR and replacing FFs and providing some degree of SRM through MCB to help reduce the worst of the storms until the 'origional state' is achieved. If GE is unacceptible, how would you propose we 'undo' the origional intervention?) Christopher Preston ( http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/info%20pages/preston.htm<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cas.umt.edu%2Fphil%2Ffaculty%2Finfo%2520pages%2Fpreston.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGC_6RW7oHUAO5kogU1UBn_SoXDNg>) has done the best work on this that I know of. (Who else's work am I missing on that point?) Have you read Wil Burns' book: Climate Change GeoengineeringPhilosophical Perspectives, Legal Issues, and Governance Frameworks<http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/law/environmental-law/climate-change-geoengineering-philosophical-perspectives-legal-issues-and-governance-frameworks> "Rosemary: Interesting proposals. I would note that it would important for such projects to be documented in some centralized way. If the world were to pursue MCB or SSI, they would presumably want to know how the Earth's albedo has/would change because of such projects. But that's a fairly minor governance point." (Rosemary brings up what I believe is referred to as soft GE (passive SRM). I would caution against using that amount of chemicals. However, the idea of passive SRM can play a large role and I've used it in the LSM option.) "Mike offered an interesting argument against those who emphasize the uncertainties involved in SRM. For my part, at least, I was focused more on the risks that show up in the models, rather than the Rumsfeldian uncertainty that seems to trouble people like Hamilton. When I referred to "some key risks [that] are less understood for SRM," I had in mind things like the uncertainty in estimates of SRM's effects on precipitation." (Which form of SRM, passive, MCB or SSI? I believe Mike is correct in advocating keeping an open and positive mind about the technology. To broadly reject such a complex concept such as GE, which is still not an overly well defined or understood concept, may be rejecting important tools which both we today and the future generations may need.) "Finally, some people raised issues (e.g., about the need to "arm the future" with geoengineering technology) that I'll address in a separate post in the next few days, drawing on Stephen Gardiner's and Gregor Betz's work on those issues." (Should a community wait for a fire to breakout before politically creating a fire department, funding it, staffing it, training the staff for it, inventing the needed equipment for it, testing the equipment and staff, and then and only then using it to fight the first fire? To... not... first build a fire department, in a community of matchbox dwellers, would seem negligent (IMHO). Best, Michael On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:35 PM, David Morrow <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike, Michael, Greg, and list: > > Thanks for your input. I guess I should emphasize that I was not > attempting a complete analysis of the ethics of SRM or the ethics of CDR. > In particular, I was not trying to address questions about whether SRM > and/or CDR are or could be justified or even morally required. That's why I > didn't compare the downsides of geoengineering to the very real downsides > of inadequate mitigation. Some ethicists and activists leap from claims > about geoengineering's downsides to the conclusion that we should not > pursue geoengineering. Please don't take me to be doing that. My goal was > simply to point out the differences and similarities in the ethical > problems that would arise were we to pursue SRM and those that would arise > were we to pursue CDR. > > A few replies/queries about specific points that people raised: > > Ben posted links to two papers. I highly recommend both of them. I should > have mentioned the first one as a general discussion of ethical differences > between SRM and CDR. (Sorry, Ben, for not thinking of it!) > > Michael claimed that MCB would have far fewer transborder effects than > SSI. His example of Arctic cooling, though, suggests that there would still > be important transborder effects (e.g., throughout the Arctic Circle), but > that they would be confined to fewer countries than with global SSI. That > does make the problem easier, and much closer to problems we've tackled > before, but it doesn't eliminate it. Also, I seem to recall reading about > modeling studies that found surprising (to me) long-distance effects -- > something like spraying in the north Pacific causing changes in a range of > different places. Am I to understand that MCB could be targeted quite > narrowly so as to avoid involving more than a few countries at a time? > > Michael suggested that the environmental philosophers' argument about > intervention assumes that "there has been.....no.....previous > intervention." I hear this response a lot, but I think it's misguided. No > one is assuming that there's been no previous intervention. The argument is > not "let's not despoil wilderness with SRM." *That* argument would be open > to the reply that the "wilderness" is already despoiled. To oversimplify, > the idea is that intervening *further* in an already-despoiled system is > worse than "undoing" the original intervention. Christopher Preston ( > http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/info%20pages/preston.htm) has done > the best work on this that I know of. (Who else's work am I missing on that > point?) > > Rosemary: Interesting proposals. I would note that it would important for > such projects to be documented in some centralized way. If the world were > to pursue MCB or SSI, they would presumably want to know how the Earth's > albedo has/would change because of such projects. But that's a fairly minor > governance point. > > Mike offered an interesting argument against those who emphasize the > uncertainties involved in SRM. For my part, at least, I was focused more on > the risks that show up in the models, rather than the Rumsfeldian > uncertainty that seems to trouble people like Hamilton. When I referred to > "some key risks [that] are less understood for SRM," I had in mind things > like the uncertainty in estimates of SRM's effects on precipitation. > > Finally, some people raised issues (e.g., about the need to "arm the > future" with geoengineering technology) that I'll address in a separate > post in the next few days, drawing on Stephen Gardiner's and Gregor Betz's > work on those issues. > > David > > > > On Sunday, January 26, 2014 5:08:26 PM UTC-6, Mike MacCracken wrote: > >> 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 region's >> 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 world's >> 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" 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 a topic in the > Google Groups "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/qiSDWGZ38pA/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. > -- *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* http://www.voglerlake.com -- 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.
