Well, the brief description in the Lawrentian leaves out much. I certainly mentioned the adverse impacts SRM is proposed to counteract. I spent 15 minutes in the beginning discussing the "nightmare rationale" for SRM and I played the newly released IASS video (http://youtu.be/3GKjl7afwaY) to introduce the topic (on a sidenote, the video was very well received). Perhaps there's a discussion to be had about whether the video gives a fair overview of the rationales for doing SRM. The previous lecture in this series was dedicated to the science and pros/cons of SRM/geoengineering. My lecture was on ethical and moral issues that arise in the discourse on SRM, research and governance, picking up where the other left off. Thus, it was not my job to do a hard sell of the tipping point argument for SRM.
The main ethical problem with SRM, I think, is political legitimacy. Almost 200 sovereign states with maybe 9 billion souls would be affected and have different perspectives on what ought to be done and how. If you add "in a situation of multiple regional drought/flood catastrophes, with a small window of opportunity, where many people nevertheless will have pragmatic or ethical doubts about the wisdom of using technology to fix a problem caused by technology in combination with the human condition; a situation where there would almost certainly be significant power differentials between relative global winners and losers", you have social complexity approaching off the scales compared to the rather ordinary (and still (nearly) unresolvable) political problems we face today. The kind of global institution that could arbitrate such a situation and make a timely, authoritative, legitimate and lawful decision about SRM that would be universally respected and obeyed does not exist, and it is hard to see that it ever will. Now, perhaps that is too high a bar to set - perhaps it would be enough that a majority of the global population were represented by states that wanted SRM and a multilateral consortium implemented it regardless of the wishes of everyone else. Various other conditions that could bestow sufficient legitimacy on anyone wanting to geoengineer without global consensus is worth a discussion on its own (could the end ever justify the means? Is the only kind of justification possible a ex-post justification in a scenario where risks and consequences of SRM turned out to be overblown?). Regardless, all scenarios that would see SRM implemented would have to overcome really serious ethical and moral obstacles; these would either have to be resolved in some fashion. Discussion of ethical issues therefore has to start now. The prospect of tipping points terrify me - I'm quite convinced they are plausible. Whether SRM terrifies me more depends on what side of the bed I got out on in the morning. Best wishes, Bjørnar Bjørnar Egede-Nissen PhD Candidate Department of Political Science Social Science Centre University of Western Ontario London, Ontario N6A 5C2 Canada Email: beged...@uwo.ca On 22 February 2014 10:20, Mike MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net> wrote: > And apparently no mention at all of the adverse impacts that SRM would > offset—offsets so serious that there is global agreement (if not yet > sufficient action) that the world must totally give up fossil fuels to > avoid, that are viewed as potentially having nonlinearities and > irreversibilities such as loss of tens of percent of global biodiversity, > sea level rise of many meters, and more. Much less any discussion of the > various potential forms of geoengineering and adaptive application of it, > perhaps using SRM to slow in near-term and CDR drawdown of CO2 as an exit > strategy, etc. > > Mike MacCracken > > > > On 2/21/14 9:26 PM, "Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote: > > http://www.lawrentian.com/archives/1002706 > > Visiting lecturer discusses moral quandaries in geoengineering > > POSTED ON FEBRUARY 21, 2014 BY XUE YAN > > On Tuesday, Feb. 18, Bjornar Egede-Nissen, from the department of > political science at the University of Western Ontario, gave a lecture > titled “Geoengineering: Ethically Challenged, Politically Impossible?” in > Steitz Hall of Science.The lecture covered a brief introduction to > geoengineering, its ethical challenges and the political difficulties faced > by geoengineering.According to the lecture, geoengineering is defined as > the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to > counteract anthropogenic climate change. Solar radiation management (SRM), > a theoretical type of geoengineering which aims to reflect sunlight back > into space to reduce global warming, was the main topic of Egede-Nissen’s > lecture.Egede-Nissen believed that there are some limitations on SRM. He > said that though SRM is able to block the sunlight, the CO2 is still left > on the earth, so SRM only treats the symptoms, not the causes of global > warming. In order to gradually get rid of the CO2, people have to continue > to use SRM, and due to the slow negative emission, it will take a very long > time to achieve. This is another limitation, he said.Egede-Nissen also said > that once the use of SRM begins, people would face the exit problem of SRM. > Also, it is extremely hard to predict the effects of the SRM on the > climate, so there is also unpredictable risk to using SRM.When considering > SRM, Egede-Nissen said we must also think about the ethical challenges.He > admitted that there are some justifications of doing SRM research, > including the cost-benefit analysis, the value of scientific research and > the emergency options for SRM research. According to Egede-Nissen, the SRM > can be comparatively cheap, but the long time-frame required and the side > effects of doing SRM research can be cause for reconsideration.At the end > of the talk, Egede-Nissen said he wanted to leave an “irrelevant” take home > message. He said,“The environment is a bathtub.” He explained that if we > put the carbon in the earth, it would drain out of the atmosphere in a much > slower rate. He believed that it is a very common misunderstanding to think > that stopping emissions today will improve the situation, because the past > emissions will remain there for hundreds of years.Freshman Sara Zaccarine > said that it was interesting that his talk aimed at raising questions > rather than answering them. She said, “His examples are very relevant to us > and it is helpful to understand a lot more.” She also likes that he brought > the large-scale issue down to more specific points.Sophomore Lena Bixby > thinks the ethical issues are important. People have the technology, but we > are not doing anything about the problem. She said it is like a moral test: > “Are we doing anything wrong by not doing anything about [global warming]?” > > -- > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
