WRT insurance, I view the moral hazard issue primarily in terms of the
public-private tradeoff. Insurance provides some buffer
for the individual, deflating the pressure for public spending to
reduce the likely magnitude of the hazard and thus protect the whole of
society.
I think that is an ethical issue involving social justice. Call it a moral
issue if you want.
Although not as clear cut, geoengineering raises similar issue. For example,
it could promise to reduce the magnitude of hazard enough for
the wealthy and powerful to then believe they can manage, but enough to protect
the rest of the global society, which has fewer options for adaptation.
John Harte
Professor of Ecosystem Sciences
ERG/ESPM
310 Barrows Hall
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
[email protected]
On Feb 5, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote:
> Attached
>
> Poster's note : old, but new to list. Hopefully sheds a little light on a
> controversial topic. I note Keith follows similar arguments, suggesting that
> some reduction of mitigation is to be expected in a geoengineered world.
>
>
> --
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> <hale 2009.pdf>
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
