Dr. Svoboda, list, and panelists
1. Thanks for the alert on this 1.5 hour panel. I hope that you
and/or others can report back on any comparisons found for the ethics of CDR
and SRM.
2. Curiously, a major news item relative to biochar just came to my
attention yesterday - a report (dated 30 July) by a market research firm on the
nascent biochar industry. See
http://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/biochar-market.html . I mention it
only because the report is unlikely to have been on the radar of this panel.
3. My guess is that this is the only market projection for any
geoengineering approach. I can't comment on its validity since its cost (about
as much as 5 tonnes of char) exceeds my interest level. Without the benefit of
reading any but the brief summary, I personally think it is on the conservative
side. I am not recommending this report - only reporting on its existence.
4. However, I hope the panelists will factor in the report's
rationale (a bit given at the above site), for the sales growth predicted for
biochar, into how they compare the ethics of biochar (and competing CDR
approaches) in comparison with the SRM approaches. I am not saying that
projected future sales should greatly influence discussion of biochar (and
other CDR) ethics, but I do believe that the reasons for that projected growth
(NOT involving CDR) should have importance in this panel's discussions.
5. The websites of the six companies listed (Agri-Tech Producers, LLC,
Biochar Products, Inc., Cool Planet Energy Systems Inc, Blackcarbon, Diacarbon
Energy Inc and Genesis Industries) may also be of interest (and two others I
know are selling quite a bit are in the 175 companies they say are now
considered part of the biochar industry).
Again - Prof. Svoboda - thanks for this alert. Best of luck with your panel.
Ron
On Aug 17, 2014, at 8:26 AM, Toby Svoboda <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Ron,
>
> I agree that CDR warrants attention from ethicists (and others). For those
> attending the Berlin Climate Engineering Conference this week, there is a
> session on the ethics of CDR that might be of interest:
> http://www.ce-conference.org/ethics-carbon-dioxide-removal.
>
> Best,
> Toby
>
> The Ethics of Carbon Dioxide Removal
>
> Date: Thursday, 21. August 2014 - 11:00 to 12:30
> Location: Copenhagen
> Speakers
>
> "Geoengineering and Non-Ideal Theories of Justice" by David Morrow
> (University of Alabama at Birmingham) and Toby Svoboda (Fairfield University)
>
> "An Overview of CDR Techniques - Adverse Impacts and Ethical Concerns" by
> Haomiao Du (University of Amsterdam)
>
> "Public Participation and Stakeholder Inclusion for Geoengineering: What Do
> We Know from CDM A/R?" by Erik Thorstensen (Oslo and Akershus University
> College)
>
> "Would the Development of a Safe, Robust and Scalable Technique to Sequester
> Carbon Dioxide from the Air Create an Obligation to 'Clean up the Mess'?" by
> Tim Kruger (University of Oxford)
>
> Session Description
>
> Most of the current literature on ethical aspects of climate engineering (CE)
> has concentrated on solar radiation management. CDR has not gained wide
> addition up to now, even though it also seems to raise major normative
> challenges. In the session we will outline major issues regarding the ethics
> of CDR, summarize the main properties that distinguish CDR form SRM from a
> normative perspective, take a look at some case studies on different CDR
> techniques and put them in the context of mitigation and adaptation efforts.
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Toby Svoboda
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Philosophy
> Fairfield University
> 1073 N. Benson Rd.
> Fairfield, CT 06824
--
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.
