Poster's note : apologies for ruined formatting, which appears to be impossible to fix. Please read online
https://www.academia.edu/7666367/Benefiting_from_Climate_Geoengineering_and_Corresponding_Remedial_Duties_The_Case_of_Unforeseeable_Harms Extract Who should bear the burdens of addressing climate change? A scheme of redress for injustices attributable to geoengineering might have to differentiate between at least three different types of situation where the use of a geoengineering technology might reasonably prompt a claim for redress.First,the use of a technology might be known in advance to pose a quantifiable risk of outcomes that are incompatible with a reasonable theory of global distributive justice. Second, the use of technology might be known to pose a non-quantifiable risk of outcomes that are incom-patible with a reasonable theory of global distributive justice. Third, due to the complexity of the global climate system the full consequences of an intervention might not be knowable at the time the decision was made to deploy. This article will focus on this third category.If societies are ever to make an assessment of the proper place of CDR and SRM technologies in any portfolio of responses to anthropogenic climate change, the issue of unforeseeable harms will have to be dealt with. If a normatively justifiable scheme of remedy for unforeseeable unjust consequences is not possible, then that could provide at least a pro tanto reason to not deploy the technology in question. Thus, it is necessary to start thinking about what normative principles might constitute such scheme. -- 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/d/optout.
