Dr. Svoboda, cc list and others in this dialog:
1. I thank you and the others writing about a portion of the ethics of
Geoengieering. Your work is valuable.
2. But I am concerned that there has been only discussion of a portion
of Geoengineering - only about SRM. Not just in the current exchange, but in
virtually every geoengineering/ethics article I have read. This is true for
most of the papers mentioned in this thread.
3. One exception: Dr. Wong briefly mentions CDR and does a good job
of using the term "Geoengineering" to mean both SRM and CDR. His emphasis on
post implementation certainly can apply to CDR - so I am applauding his small
contribution. However, I disagree strongly with the word "only" in this
sentence quoting Vaughan and Lenton at about his p 2.4/6 (my emphasis added):
"For example, Naomi E. Vaughan and Timothy M. Lenton note that the
'effect [of any Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques] will decay over time [
. . . ], and it will also decay if carbon storage is not permanent. In the
long-term, the only way to return atmospheric CO2 to pre-industrial levels is
to permanently store [ . . . ] an equivalent amount of CO2 to the total emitted
to the atmosphere' (Vaughan & Lenton, 2011, p. 750).
That is, I believe there is general agreement that
afforestation/reforestation can be a valuable CDR approach, even though it is
certainly not permanent. I claim the same about biochar, with a major portion
likely to last for millennia. My concern might extend to Dr. Wong, but
certainly to Drs. Vaughan and Lenton. Permanence should never be a
requirement for any form of either SRM or CDR.
So this is to urge list members to read the Wong paper for the
(limited) way that CDR stays in his discussion.
4. Dr. Svoboda yesterday directed our attention in his last sentence
to a 2012 (behind pay-wall) article, whose abstract reads (emphasis added):
As a strategy for responding to climate change, aerosol geoengineering (AG)
carries various risks, thus raising ethical concerns regarding its potential
deployment. I examine three ethical arguments that AG ought not to be deployed,
given that it (1) risks harming persons, (2) would harm persons, and (3) would
be more harmful to persons than some other available strategy. I show that
these arguments are not successful. Instead, I defend a fourth argument: in
scenarios in which all available climate change strategies would result in net
harm, we ought to adopt the strategy that would result in the least net harm.
Barring substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, we can reasonably expect
future scenarios in which all available strategies would result in net harm. In
such cases, there is good reason to suspect that AG would result in less net
harm than emissions mitigation, adaptation, or other geoengineering strategies.
with this key words in the middle (emphasis added):
"....scenarios ... all ....... strategies .......net harm...."
I strongly believe that afforestation/reforestation, biochar and probably
several other CDR approaches will result in net good, not net harm. I hope
someone can show me why this is not true. If true, then it should follow that
Dr. Svoboda's final sentence is not logically valid. I hope some ethicist will
challenge my (and many others) view that some forms of CDR are strongly
positive forces at this time.
5. I understand that every geoengineering/ethics paper cannot also
include CDR. But surely there must be someone interested in the geoengineering
/climate/ethics arena who is also interested in the CDR side? And willing to
write on the topic - either with or without mentioning SRM? There are many of
us ready to help on specific approaches. Caution - one can't write on CDR as a
single approach, but there are probably some important ethical general
statements about that grow of CDR approaches which we can agree are net
positive good.
Jim Hansen doesn't discuss SRM; he has mainly talked about the
afforestation/reforestation form of CDR (but also see his most recent piece
with a tad about biochar two days ago at
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140814_JeremiahsProgeny.pdf)
Ron
Most of the following shortened for clarity:
On Aug 14, 2014, at 2:20 PM, Toby Svoboda <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Interesting discussion. First, regarding intention, much of what has been
> said above is helpful, and I would second Jesse's recommendation of David
> Morrow's paper on doing/allowing and double effect (full disclosure: David
> and I are coauthors on a separate project.)
<snip to last Svoboda sentence>
In some future scenario, it might be permissible to deploy some form of SRM (as
I have argued in other published work--see here), but even then we should try
to compensate for harm if we can.
<snip remainder>
His "here" refers to his 2012 article found at:
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/ethics_and_the_environment/v017/17.2.svoboda.html
with the abstract being given above.
--
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.
