For those who will be there, there is a session on this issue of intentional vs. known/foreseen at CE 14 next week:
INTENTIONAL & UNINTENTIONAL INTERFERENCES IN THE CLIMATE SYSTEM Conveners: Harald Stelzer (IASS-Potsdam) <http://www.iass-potsdam.de/people/pd-dr-harald-stelzer> Fabian Schuppert (Queen's University Belfast) <http://www.qub.ac.uk/research-centres/InstituteforCollaborativeResearchintheHumanities/StaffProfiles/DrFabianSchuppert/> Speakers: David R. Morrow (University of Alabama at Birmingham) <http://www.davidmorrow.net/> Christopher Preston (University of Montana) <http://www.humansandnature.org/christopher-preston-scholar-8.php> Clare Heyward (Warwick University) <http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/people/heyward/> Date: Wednesday, 20. August 2014 - 9:00 to 10:30 Location: Pine On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 7:29:27 AM UTC-6, Josh Horton wrote: > > Jesse, thanks for posting the Svoboda and Irvine article as well as all > four commentaries (including mine!). > > The question of intent may be misplaced here, because the standard for > international liability is usually strict, no-fault liability, which would > almost certainly apply to SRM in practice. Under this principle, the key > issue is causation/attribution, not intent. Attribution will likely be > difficult, but not impossible -- methods like Fraction Attributable Risk > are making headway on this front. > > Josh > > On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 4:00:53 AM UTC-4, Jesse Reynolds wrote: >> >> My response is one of four to Svoboda and Irvine. In the same issue, >> there is also a relevant target article by David Morrow 'Starting a flood >> to stop a fire? Some moral constraints on solar radiation management' with >> five responses. All are at >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cepe21/17/2 >> >> I am unsure of the unstated rules regarding posting articles which are >> behind firewalls. [If anyone knows, please clarify.] Here I am attaching >> Svoboda and Irvine and its responses. [I hope that this does not overstep >> the bounds of sharing.] I would be glad to share David's and those >> responses if anyone wishes and it is OK. >> >> There are a few other recent and forthcoming articles on compensation. I >> am working on one. See also >> Clare Heyward, "Benefitting from Climate Geoengineering and Corresponding >> Remedial Duties: The Case of Unforeseeable Harms," Journal of Applied >> Philosophy, (2014) >> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/japp.12075/abstract >> >> Cheers, >> -Jesse >> >> ----------------------------------------- >> Jesse L. Reynolds >> European and International Public Law >> Tilburg Sustainability Center >> Tilburg University, The Netherlands >> Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology >> email: j.l.re...@uvt.nl >> http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/ >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] >> On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley >> Sent: 12 August 2014 19:21 >> To: geoengineering >> Subject: [geo] Response to Svoboda and Irvine, J Reynolds >> >> 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@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.
