Dear Doug, dear list,
I would like to briefly come back on Doug's post on my paper (I was on
holidays and then very busy, hence the delay; sorry for this).
Ad i) Yes, more research may make it harder for uninformed
decision-makers to have a naively optimistic view of SRM. But there are
plenty of other mechanisms that might nevertheless reduce mitigation
levels. These are identified and discussed in the paper (I wonder about
the use of "unsound" at this instance). That is, I do not think that
naively optimistic views of SRM is a likely reason for not undertaking
required mitigation measures. Rather, these are not undertaken because
too many decision makers focus on (their) short term interests. If SRM
turns out to be able to avoid most serious short-term side-effects from
climate change for some powerful groups, SRM might well be a (good)
reason for these groups not to mitigate in order to maximise their
benefits.
Ad ii) The paper does not state that CE research is a bad idea. I warns
against an unintended side-effect of the research that is considered to
be dangerous. Whether this danger outweighs potentially positive effects
of the research requires a comprehensive assessment of all the options
available that is beyond any paper - and is indeed very difficult due to
the huge uncertainty involved. But the conclusion of the paper does urge
researchers/decision-makers/... to investigate measures that avoid or
reduce this trade-off rather than just claiming/hoping that it will not
happen. As is stressed repeatedly in this group and elsewhere, the
stakes are very high. In such a situation, avoiding possible dangers by
thinking about measures to avoid trade-offs and implementing these seems
like a good idea to me.
Also, I am surprised about the seat bealt analogy: side-effects of
wearing a seat bealt (reduced comfort) are negligible and this safety
measures is deployed at the individual level and, thus, benefits and
drawbacks only accrue to those deciding to use the measure. Both
characteristcs are not fulfilled in case of SRM. Interestingly,
wide-spread use of misframings in the public discourse can lead to quite
akward decisions (good example: US climate policy). This can also
bedevil decision-making on SRM.
Finally, it is actually not the case that many studies have found no
empirical evidence for the moral hazard / trade-off hypothesis as
recently claimed by Andrew. Although some studies indeed make some bold
claims in this respect, finding that participants are more concerned
about climate change and mitigation says nothing on what people will
actually do. (And cf. the recent study by Corner and Pidgeon. 2014.
‘Geoengineering, climate change scepticism and the “moral hazard”
argument: an experimental study of UK public perceptions’ that show much
more mixed results.)
The very interesting study posted by Andrew last week is - to my
knowledge - the first one that actually investigates trade-off decisions
by individuals (Merk at al.: Knowledge about aerosol injection does not
reduce individual mitigation efforts). It should also be noted that the
authors are quite clear about the limitations of their study, though
this neither undermines their findings nor its relevance.
Best, Christian
Am 06.09.2015 17:52, schrieb Douglas MacMartin:
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]
<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.
--
Christian Baatz
Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel
Department of Philosophy
Environmental Philosophy and Ethics
Leibnizstr. 6
24118 Kiel
Germany
phone: +49 (0)431 880 2823
e-mail: [email protected]
--
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.
