Greg et. al., The ethical issue is, by far, the most undeveloped area of large scale global warming mitigation (GE). Greg proposed 5 interesting thought tests on the subject and I've tried to offer reasonable answers/solutions. Ron, I see the ethical issues within the Biochar arena revolving around up-stream biomass acquisition. Palm oil is the worlds leading 'wage abuse..slavery' industry. Obviously, biochar derived from the palm oil sector would carry a heavy ethical burden, as would old growth forest displaced food crop acreage etc..
My response to Greg's offerings is open to rebuttal or contributions. We are all leaning about this aspect of global scale mitigation and the more opinions the more informed lay persons, like me, become. *[GR] Since ethicists seem more than willing to point out ethical flaws re actions against climate/CO2, how about we turn this around:* *[MH] Yes, that is what was on my mind when choosing many of the aspects of the IMBECS Protocol. I feel it is important to get ahead of the ethics debate as opposed to waiting for them to dissect the IMBECS Protocol in a 'death by a thousand cuts' strategy. In "turning this around", it takes on the intelligent strategy of the aikido-est <http://www.usaikifed.com/about/aikido/>.* *[GR] 1) What are the ethically perfect ways of solving the climate/CO2 problem?* *[MH] Before the technical side of this question can be addressed, the issue of 'ethical perfectionism' needs to be covered. To quote the *Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy*:* Perfectionism in Moral and Political Philosophy: <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perfectionism-moral/> *"Speaking generally, perfectionist writers advance an objective account of the good and then develop an account of ethics and/or politics that is informed by this account of the good. Different perfectionist writers propose different accounts of the good and arrive at different ethical and political conclusions." Go Figure!* *So, ethical perfectionism, within the global warming mitigation (GE) issue, is at this time, a subject of individual or (less than global scale) group opinion. Unless an international scale of acceptance of any one (or group of) technological solution(s) can be established the ethical card will dominate the debate and probably will do so from multiple small group perspectives (think ETC...yes not pretty from the STEM view).* *You may remember that a few years ago that some 'ethics champions', such as ETC, was calling for redress of historical/colonial injustices as a precondition to solving for global warming. Clearly, that is a perfect example of how insanity can actually be apart of group think (think fascistic self justification) and thus apart of their 'ethical view'.* *And thus, to address your question concerning the "ethically perfect" ways of solving the global warming issue, this will be what ever the largest group/consensus accepts as being "Good". * *Fortunately, there is the 'ethically' legitimate use of existing mitigation methods and means of CDR (BECCS) which has been widely accepted by a rather significant representative of a large and knowledgeable global group (IPCC WG3). Frankly, the SRM/SAI method may never achieve that level of wide acceptance at the IPCC WG3 level and, as such, may never be widely viewed as 'ethical' for that one reason (i.e. lack of broad public/scientific support). * *The questions being asked here are at the forefront of current '*Environmental Ethics <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/#Oth>' *developmental thought and providing a full treatment of the full spectrum of relevant issues, within a brief post, would be difficult*. *Yet, it can be safely stated that for a multitude of reasons, ethics being just one, gaining broad popular support for...any...large scale global warming mitigation (GE) effort is highly important to that effort.* *[GR] 2) What do we do (and what are the ethics) if "ethical" solutions are not adequately employed or fail to solve the climate/CO2 problem?* *[MH] Any broadly supported solution, by definition, would be considered 'ethical' by the largest/most influential group. Such a group can be reasonably expected to properly vet any large scale STEM/financial investment in global scale mitigation means and methods. Thus, failure would seem to be exceedingly unlikely.* *[GR] 3) Shall we let ethical perfection be the enemy of any effective climate/CO2 solution?* *[MH] The answer to that question falls within Principal 15 of the* Rio Declaration <http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163> : *Principle 15* *"In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.".* *[GR] 4) Might the ethics of taking a particular climate/CO2 action differ in a society experiencing a +2 deg C warming vs a society under a +6 deg C warming?* *[MH] As the latter would be profoundly disruptive to the global social structure a sharp decline in moral/ethical/societal standards would be expected. Thus, the global focus on mitigation may radically shift to one of daily survival of relatively small disjointed groups. * *[GR] 5) Shall we then allow present ethics to dictate the options we research and make available to future generations under potentially different ethical restraints?* *[MH] This question touches upon the trans-generational factor of global warming mitigation and requires assumptions which are difficult to quantify/qualify or even loosely speculate upon. Hopefully, the global warming debate will expand our understanding of both environmental and intergovernmental ethics and allow us and our descendants to avoid suicidal degrees of* 'The Tragedy of the Commons <http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Tragedy_of_the_commons.html> '. *[GR] It would seem that the first order of business would be to find out via research what the cost- and environmental-effectiveness is of each conceivable option. We and esp future generations can then debate what option or combination can be ethically deployed and under what circumstances. Failing to quickly and fully understand our options from technical, economic, and environmental perspectives would seem to put at risk our chances of success under any measure of ethics.* *[MH] I agree.* Best regards, Michael On Friday, August 1, 2014 8:27:15 PM UTC-7, Greg Rau wrote: > > Since ethicists seem more than willing to point out ethical flaws re > actions against climate/CO2, how about we turn this around: > 1) What are the ethically perfect ways of solving the climate/CO2 problem? > 2) What do we do (and what are the ethics) if "ethical" solutions are not > adequately employed or fail to solve the climate/CO2 problem? > 3) Shall we let ethical perfection be the enemy of any effective > climate/CO2 solution? > 4) Might the ethics of taking a particular climate/CO2 action differ in a > society experiencing a +2 deg C warming vs a society under a +6 deg C > warming? > 5) Shall we then allow present ethics to dictate the options we research > and make available to future generations under potentially different > ethical restraints? > > It would seem that the first order of business would be to find out via > research what the cost- and environmental-effectiveness is of each > conceivable option. We and esp future generations can then debate what > option or combination can be ethically deployed and under what > circumstances. Failing to quickly and fully understand our options from > technical, economic, and environmental perspectives would seem to put at > risk our chances of success under any measure of ethics. > > Greg > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Andrew Lockley <[email protected] <javascript:>> > *To:* geoengineering <[email protected] <javascript:>> > *Sent:* Thursday, July 31, 2014 5:04 PM > *Subject:* [geo] Failure to deal with ethics will make climate > engineering 'unviable' > > Failure to deal with ethics will make climate engineering ‘unviable’ > http://gu.com/p/4vd69 > Failure to deal with ethics will make climate engineering ‘unviable’ > Environmental philosopher warns major ethical, political, legal and social > issues around geoengineering must be addressed > Graham Readfearn in Sydney > 22:00 CEST Thu 31 July 2014 > Geoengineering, also known as climate modification, falls into two > categories - carbon dioxide removal or solar radiation management. > Photograph: ISS/NASA > Research into ways to engineer the Earth’s climate as a last-ditch > response to global warming will be rendered “unviable” if the associated > ethical issues are not tackled first, a leading environmental philosopher > has warned. > Prof Stephen Gardiner, of the University of Washington, Seattle, told the > Guardian that so-called geoengineering risked making problems worse for > future generations. > Gardiner was in Sydney for a two-day symposium that aimed to grapple with > the moral and ethical consequences of geoengineering, also known as climate > modification. > Later this year, the United States’ National Academy of Sciences is due to > publish a key report into the “technical feasibility” of a number of > proposed geoengineering methods, which fall into two categories. > Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) tries to cut the levels of the greenhouse gas > in the atmosphere and store it, for example, in trees, algae or underground. > A second category, known as solar radiation management tries to lower the > amount of energy entering the Earth’s atmosphere from the sun by, for > example, spraying sulphate particles into the stratosphere or whitening > clouds. > Gardiner said political inertia was one reason why the world had failed to > respond meaningfully to climate change and rising greenhouse gases. > “There’s a temptation for the current generation particularly in the rich > countries to take benefits now and pass the severe costs on to the future,” > he said. > “Arguably that’s one of the big reasons we have failed so far on climate > policy because we have succumbed to that temptation. > “But when it comes to geoengineering, one of my biggest worries is that we > might pick geoengineering as an intervention that replicates that pattern. > “We might try and adopt a quick technological fix but one that holds the > worst impacts for a few decades without much attention to what happens > after that. What does happen after that could be even worse than what would > unfold if we just allowed the negative climate impacts in the near term to > materialise.” > He said that it was time to engage with the ethical and moral questions > now that major scientific institutions and a growing group of researchers > were starting to consider geoengineering. > “We are still in the early stages and very few people have written and > talked about this. The good news is that the major scientific reports > generally do signal that they think there are major ethical, political, > legal and social issues that need investigating. The crucial thing is > whether we get beyond saying that as a throwaway line to actually dealing > with those implications. > “Unless you can deal with these social and political issues then any kind > of geoengineering would be unviable anyway – or at least any remotely > ethically defensible version would be unviable.” > In 2009, a Royal Society report called for more research into > geoengineering and concluded that CDR techniques “should be regarded as > preferable”. > A proposed experiment to test a way to deliver particles into the upper > atmosphere using a balloon and a one kilometre-long pipe was cancelled in > 2012 after it was reported that two of the scientists involved had > submitted patent applications that were similar to the techniques being > proposed. > A study earlier this year in the journal Nature Communications comparing > five different proposed methods of climate engineering found all were > “relatively ineffective” while carrying “potentially severe side effects” > that would be difficult to stop. > Prof Jim Falk, of the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute at the > University of Melbourne, told the symposium there were more than 40 > distinct methods that could be described as geoengineering, including > planting large numbers of trees and painting roofs white. > He said: “There’s a huge array of ideas and they go from local scale to > intermediate scale to a global scale. The scale, the impacts and the risks > all go up together.” > • Graham Readfearn’s travel and accommodation was paid for by the > symposium organisers. > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- 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.
