How and why do the challenges of compensation for solar geoengineering damage fundamentally differ from the challenges associated with compensation for damages associated greenhouse gas or tropospheric aerosol emissions that are byproducts of industrial activity?
The main differences that I see is that inadvertent climate change likely involves more actors (i.e., solar geoengineering will probably be limited to state actors) and inadvertent climate change is caused knowingly but not intentionally. Does the issue of compensation fundamentally differ depending on whether the climate change was caused intentionally versus merely knowingly? (By the way, paper is behind a paywall that Stanford libraries does not tunnel through, so I am operating solely on the basis of the text below.) _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross <dr...@carnegiescience.edu> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ethics, Policy & Environment > Volume 17, Issue 2, 2014 > > Response to Svoboda and Irvine > > Full access > DOI:10.1080/21550085.2014.926080 Jesse Reynolds > Published online: 08 Aug 2014 > > In this issue, Svoboda and Irvine (Svoboda & Irvine, 20146. Svoboda, > T., & Irvine, P. (2014). Ethical and technical challenges in > compensating for harm due to solar radiation management > geoengineering. Ethics, Policy and Environment, 17(2), 157-174. > [Taylor & Francis Online] > View all references) offer the most in-depth consideration thus far of > possible compensation for harm from solar radiation management (SRM) > geoengineering. This topic is indeed treacherous terrain, pulling > together multiple complex debates, ethical and otherwise. Their > description of the technical challenges to determining damages and > causation in particular are illuminating. The reader cannot help, > though, but be left with the sense that both SRM and compensation are > futile efforts, bound to do more harm than good. > Before proceeding, throughout any consideration of geoengineering, one > must always bear in mind that it is under consideration as a possible > complementary response (along with greenhouse gas emissions > reductions--or 'mitigation'--and adaptation) to climate change. Climate > change poses risks to the environment and humans, among whom the > world's poor are the most vulnerable. The Intergovernmental Panel on > Climate Change recently concluded that 'Models consistently suggest > that SRM would generally reduce climate differences compared to a > world with elevated greenhouse gas concentrations and no SRM ...' > (Boucher et al., 20133. Boucher, O., Randall, D., Artaxo, D., > Bretherton, C., Feingold, G., Forster, P., ... Zhang, X. Y. (2013). > Clouds and aerosols. In T. F.Stocker, D.Qin, G. -K.Plattner, M.Tignor, > S. K.Allen, J.Boschung... P. M. Midgley (Eds.), Climate change 2013: The > physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth > Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change > (pp. 571-657). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. > > View all references, p. 575). Therefore, SRM has the potential to > reduce harm to the environment and humans, particularly to already > disadvantaged groups. However, SRM is imperfect. > The primary problem with S&I's analysis is that they treat the > shortcomings of SRM and of compensation for its potential negative > secondary effects as if they were sui generis. In fact, these cited > shortcomings are found among three existing policy domains, which > happen to intersect at the proposed compensation for SRM's harms. The > first such policy domain is socially organized responses to other > complex problems, and the provision of public goods in particular. In > a key passage, S&I write that 'The potential for SRM deployment to > result in an unequal distribution of harm and benefit among persons > raises a serious ethical challenge. It seems deeply unfair to adopt a > climate change strategy that benefits some at the expense of harming > others. This is especially the case if those harmed bear little or no > responsibility for the problem of anthropogenic climate change' (pp. > 160-161). One could replace the phrases 'SRM deployment' and 'a > climate change strategy' (and skip the final specific sentence, for > now) with references to almost any socially organized response to a > complex problem, and the statement would remain valid. Indeed, the > primary function of government is arguably to levy taxes in order to > provide public goods, which are unlikely to be otherwise adequately > provided. These public goods include (but are not limited to) defense > from external threats, police protection to reduce crime, construction > of infrastructure, regulation for safety and environmental protection, > generation of knowledge through research, and standards setting. In > each of these cases, some people benefit more than others, and some > pay more than others. Some may be net losers. Policies in which no one > is a net loser (i.e., Pareto improving) are sometimes possible, but > most often are not or are not pursued. Instead, policies that generate > positive total net benefits are adopted. To compensate net losers, > side payments can be made and/or other issues can be linked. While > these arrangements could be called ethically problematic, they > constitute the very core of public policy. In fact, several of S&I's > ethical concerns--including raising revenue from those opposed to > and/or harmed by a policy, arbitrary rules, and the non-identity > problem--could be posed regarding these public goods' provision. SRM > might be especially complex, in large part because of its global > nature, but that does not make it entirely novel. Other global public > goods are promoted through various international mechanisms (Barrett, > 20071. Barrett, S. (2007). Why cooperate? The incentive to supply > global public goods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. > > View all references). > The second policy domain posing similar ethical problems is > compensation, particularly in complex situations. Even in a case as > simple as accident liability with a single injurer and a single > victim, compensation for non-economic and irreparable damages is > unclear, and compensation clearly does not grant license for an > injurer to harm the victim. In a more complex example, such as the > requested compensation by those born with birth defects due to their > mothers' use of thalidomide during pregnancy, is it very uncertain who > should pay and how much compensation should be provided. > The third existing policy domain is climate change. In the key passage > cited above, 'SRM deployment' could be replaced with 'mitigation,' > 'adaptation,' and/or 'compensation for climate change damages' and the > statement would remain valid. Any climate policy will 'result in an > unequal distribution of harm and benefit among persons,' and under all > feasible policies, those who 'bear little or no responsibility for the > problem of anthropogenic climate change' will experience some harm. > Specifically, aggressive mitigation would be expensive and, though it > offers some co-benefits, it would hinder economic development, > including in poor countries.1 > 1 Developing countries account for the majority of current greenhouse > gases emissions and the large majority of projected future emissions. > Fossil fuel combustion remains essential to economic development. > Aggressive mitigation would reduce fossil fuel combustion, hindering > economic development in poor countries.View all notes > The cause of the 'ethical uncertainty' is not SRM but climate change > and greenhouse gas emissions, whose ethics is discussed thoroughly in > the literature. Because of this, no responses to climate change will > be impervious to accusations of being unjust. However, S&I's implicit > ethical divorce of SRM from climate change has the effect of laying > the ethical challenges from climate change at the feet of SRM. > An additional problematic aspect of S&I is that, to some degree, they > stack the deck against SRM. Regarding its benefits, they fail to > emphasize that SRM appears to hold the potential to greatly reduce > climate change risks to the environment and people, particularly to > the world's poor. Regarding SRM's costs, they cite four ways in which > some might be harmed, each of which is likely to be less severe than > they imply. First, SRM would compensate for temperate and > precipitation changes unevenly. Yet almost all modeling of SRM's > probable effects are not optimized but instead use a determined SRM > intensity or one that would return global average temperature to a > preindustrial value. Citing them as indicating certain likely harms > would require that significantly suboptimal SRM policies be adopted. > The one model that does balance temperature and precipitation across > regions of the globe found that population-weighted Pareto optimal, > globally uniform SRM could compensate for 93% of temperature changes > and 56% of precipitation changes (Moreno-Cruz, Ricke, & Keith, 20124. > Moreno-Cruz, J. B., Ricke, K. L., & Keith, D. W. (2012). A simple > model to account for regional inequalities in the effectiveness of > solar radiation management. Climatic Change, 110(3), 649-668. > [CrossRef], [Web of Science (R)] > View all references, p. 660). Second, S&I point to ocean > acidification, but this is not caused by SRM but instead by elevated > atmospheric carbon dioxide. It is simply unaddressed by SRM. Third, > they note possible damage to stratospheric ozone. However, this would > be caused by only one proposed SRM technique (stratospheric aerosol > injection) using one proposed material (sulfate aerosols); other > methods and materials are possible. Furthermore, recent research > indicates that this impact would be small and the harmful consequences > (increased ultraviolet radiation) would be almost entirely offset by > the screening of incoming light by the aerosols (Pitari et al., 20145. > Pitari, G., Aquila, V., Kravitz, B., Robock, A., Watanabe, S., Cionni, > I., ... Tilmes, S. (2014). Stratospheric ozone response to sulfate > geoengineering: Results from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison > Project (GeoMIP). Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, > 119(5), 2629-2653. > [CrossRef], [Web of Science (R)] > View all references). Fourth, if SRM were to suddenly stop, then the > subsequent rapid climate change would be very harmful. But it is not > only SRM which poses risks if not implemented properly. For example, > society could intend optimal mitigation and adaptation yet fail to > implement them, resulting in dangerous climate change. In fact, > contemporary society maintains numerous complex operations whose > cessation would result in harm. For example, the well being of almost > all people relies upon continued global trade powered by fossil fuels, > yet we generally do not worry about a sudden cessation of trade and > fossil fuel extraction. Lastly, even if SRM were to stop, the benefits > might still outweigh the costs (Bickel & Agrawal, 20132. Bickel, J. > E., & Agrawal, S. (2013). Reexamining the economics of aerosol > geoengineering. Climatic Change, 119(3-4), 993-1006. > [CrossRef], [Web of Science (R)] > View all references). Nevertheless, the authors emphasize that SRM > 'could result in substantial harm' (p. 160). This is true in that SRM > would pose risks, but S&I emphasize only the misses while downplaying > the hits. > Both SRM and the compensation for its negative secondary effects are > ethically complex. Yet such 'ethical uncertainty' generally neither > raises questions of ethical permissibility and nor induces paralysis > among policy makers in other domains such as the provision of public > goods, compensation, and mitigation and adaptation in response to > climate change. SRM is indeed complex and challenging but S&I fail to > indicate why its case should be fundamentally different from these > others. A more pragmatic approach, which asks what policies and > avenues of research would be most likely to offer the greatest > benefits, as opposed to one which seeks only what is problematic, may > be more productive. > > Notes > > 1 Developing countries account for the majority of current greenhouse > gases emissions and the large majority of projected future emissions. > Fossil fuel combustion remains essential to economic development. > Aggressive mitigation would reduce fossil fuel combustion, hindering > economic development in poor countries. > > References > > 1. Barrett, S. (2007). Why cooperate? The incentive to supply global > public goods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. > 2. Bickel, J. E., & Agrawal, S. (2013). Reexamining the economics of > aerosol geoengineering. Climatic Change, 119(3-4), 993-1006. > [CrossRef], [Web of Science (R)] > 3. Boucher, O., Randall, D., Artaxo, D., Bretherton, C., Feingold, G., > Forster, P., ... Zhang, X. Y. (2013). Clouds and aerosols. In T. > F.Stocker, D.Qin, G. -K.Plattner, M.Tignor, S. K.Allen, J.Boschung... P. > M. Midgley (Eds.), Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. > Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 571-657). Cambridge: > Cambridge University Press. > 4. Moreno-Cruz, J. B., Ricke, K. L., & Keith, D. W. (2012). A simple > model to account for regional inequalities in the effectiveness of > solar radiation management. Climatic Change, 110(3), 649-668. > [CrossRef], [Web of Science (R)] > 5. Pitari, G., Aquila, V., Kravitz, B., Robock, A., Watanabe, S., > Cionni, I., ... Tilmes, S. (2014). Stratospheric ozone response to > sulfate geoengineering: Results from the Geoengineering Model > Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). Journal of Geophysical Research: > Atmospheres, 119(5), 2629-2653. [CrossRef], [Web of Science (R)] > 6. Svoboda, T., & Irvine, P. (2014). Ethical and technical challenges > in compensating for harm due to solar radiation management > geoengineering. Ethics, Policy and Environment, 17(2), 157-174. > [Taylor & Francis Online] > > -- > 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/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 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/d/optout.
