I'm surprised that nobody ever seems to mention that, philosophically, geoengineering is rather like the trolley problem (particularly the 'fat man' case).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem Consideration of this seems particularly appropriate to earlier discussions on this thread. A On 12 August 2014 22:53, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: > How does whether the intervention was intentional vs. merely knowing affect > the attribution problem? > > Attribution of effects to causes in physical systems is independent of > motivations. > > In either case, damaging third parties was not the goal. In both cases > (intentionally vs knowingly causing climate change), someone is will to > damage (or risk damaging) third parties to achieve some other goal. > > In what ways do the compensation to the third party depend on the details of > what the other goal might have been? > > Again: Are there fundamental differences in the compensation issue between > climate change that is produced intentionally versus climate change that is > produced knowingly? > > If I emit CO2 with the intent of changing climate versus the intent of > driving to work, does that change anything relevant to compensation or > attribution issues? > > > > > _______________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab > https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira > > Assistant: Dawn Ross <[email protected]> > > > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Jamais Cascio <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Level and intentionality of contribution is one component. Provable >> attribution is another, which is also relevant to climate engineering: if >> Weather Disaster X happens six months after the onset of SRM, how can it be >> proven that WDX was (or was not) triggered by SRM? >> >> It may be useful to look at the legal history of lawsuits brought against >> tobacco companies for broadly parallel complexities. >> >> -Jamais Cascio >> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 12, 2014, at 11:24 AM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> 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 [email protected] >> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab >> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira >> >> Assistant: Dawn Ross <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Andrew Lockley >> <[email protected]> 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 ®] >>> 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 ®] >>> 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 ®] >>> 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 ®] >>> 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 ®] >>> 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 ®] >>> 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 [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. >> >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> > > -- > 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. -- 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.
