Didn’t read quite as carefully as I could, but two quick comments: i) the assumption in extending the argument to research is that more research increases the likelihood of SRM being used as an excuse not to mitigate; I suspect that is unfounded. That is, more research may make it harder for uninformed decision-makers to have a naively optimistic view of SRM.
ii) Even if I knew with absolute certainty that research on SRM would necessarily reduce mitigation, that does not mean that said research is a bad idea, for two reasons. Even with a single-rational-actor view of the world, given uncertainty about impacts of climate change, less mitigation plus option for SRM might yield better outcomes. But more importantly, I choose to wear my seat belt and would demand that my children (if I had any) did too, despite the fact that the “morally correct” path is for everyone to drive more carefully. That is, I might want to have SRM available as an option because I don’t trust someone else to be doing the mitigating. That is, I don’t think the last line below (cautioning against research) follows from any of the arguments made in the paper. doug From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2015 3:25 PM To: geoengineering <[email protected]> Subject: [geo] Can we have it both ways? On potential trade-offs between Mitigation and Solar Radiation Management | Baatz https://www.academia.edu/14643021/Can_we_have_it_both_ways_On_potential_trade-offs_between_Mitigation_and_Solar_Radiation_Management Draft – Please cite the shortened version forthcoming in Environmental Values (25,1) Can we have it both ways? On potential trade-offs between mitigation and Solar Radiation Management Christian Baatz, Kiel University Abstract Many in the discourse on climate engineering agree that if deployment of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) technologies is ever permissible, then it must be accompanied by far-reaching mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This raises the question of if and how both strategies interact. Although raised in many publications, there are surprisingly few detailed investigations of this important issue. The paper aims at contributing to closing this research gap by (i) reconstructing moral hazard claims to clarify their aim, (ii) offering one specific normative justification for far-reaching mitigation and (iii) investigating in greater detail different mechanisms potentially causing a trade-off between mitigation and SRM. I conclude that the empirical evidence questioning the trade-off hypothesis is inconclusive. Moreover, theoretical reflections as well as economic model studies point to a trade-off. In our current epistemic situation these findings must be taken seriously. They caution against researching and developing SRM technologies before measures to avoid or minimize a trade-off are implemented. Keywords: Solar Radiation Management, Mitigation, Moral Hazard, Climate Engineering, Trade-Off -- 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] <mailto:[email protected]> . To post to this group, send email to [email protected] <mailto:[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.
