Hi Christian,
Apologies if I came across more negatively than I meant to, though at least in the short term the connection between SRM research and mitigation decisions seems speculative, though of course I agree that measures to minimize trade-off make sense. Regarding the seat-belt analogy, I wasn’t trying to suggest it is analogous in every respect; nothing is. The only reason I used it was to explicitly recognize that there are different actors, and unfortunately it is quite common for statements to be made about geoengineering that neglect that point. (That is, “it is smarter to mitigate, therefore we shouldn’t research geoengineering”.) doug From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christian Baatz Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 6:47 AM To: [email protected] Cc: 'geoengineering' Subject: Re: [geo] Can we have it both ways? On potential trade-offs between Mitigation and Solar Radiation Management | Baatz 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 <mailto:[email protected]> <[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]. 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. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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.
