It was published in Strategic Studies Quarterly. A PDF is here: https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/SSQ/documents/Volume-12_Issue-2/Chalecki_Ferrari.pdf
On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 6:02:16 PM UTC-4, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > Poster's note: overlooked at the time the time. IDK if it got published > > > https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2018/06/engineering-climate-or-deploying-disaster-applying-war-theory-geoengineering/ > > Engineering the Climate—or Deploying Disaster? Applying Just War Theory to > Geoengineering > > - Elizabeth L. Chalecki > > [image: Space_lens] > > As the national security ramifications > <https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2017/07/security-links-emerging-congressional-common-ground-climate-change/> > of > climate change grow more pronounced, climate manipulation technologies, > known as geoengineering, > <https://ceassessment.org/what-is-climate-engineering/> will become more > attractive as a method of staving off climate-related security > emergencies. However, geoengineering technologies could disrupt the global > ecological status quo, and could pose a potentially coercive (and very > serious) threat to peace. Is it possible to obtain the potential benefits > of these game-changing technologies, while avoiding spurring violence and > conflict? In a recent article in *Strategic Studies Quarterly* > <http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/Portals/10/SSQ/documents/Volume-12_Issue-2/Chalecki_Ferrari.pdf>, > > we argue that just war theory > <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/11/30/just-war-theory-a-primer/?utm_term=.4b7c2f9386e9>—which > > defines the concepts of “right” and “wrong” in warfare—could provide > ethical standards for security decision-makers as they consider whether or > how geoengineering should be used to address the climate challenge. > *Geoengineering in the Global Commons* > > Geoengineering technologies fall into two distinct types, carbon dioxide > removal > <https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18805/climate-intervention-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-reliable-sequestration> > and solar radiation management > <https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18988/climate-intervention-reflecting-sunlight-to-cool-earth>. > > Carbon dioxide removal includes any method of removing CO2 or other > heat-trapping gases from the ambient air with the intention of reducing the > greenhouse effect and allowing more heat to escape the atmosphere. Solar > radiation management seeks to bounce sunlight away from the earth before it > has the chance to be absorbed and re-radiated from the surface as infrared > heat, becoming trapped in the atmosphere and contributing to the greenhouse > effect. > > Most methods can be deployed from land, and so would be subject to the > national laws and norms of governance in the country where they are > deployed. However, three current methods—ocean iron fertilization, sulfur > aerosol dispersal, and marine-based cloud brightening—can be deployed from > the high seas or the atmosphere, which are a part of the shared global > commons, not national territory. Because the environmental cause and > effect are separated in space and time, a sovereign state acting in these > arenas could unilaterally affect the entire planet’s ecology. > > Collateral damage to the environment > <https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2017/11/toxic-legacy-remediating-pollution-iraq/> > during > combat is one of the most significant costs of war. UN Environment > <https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/disasters-conflicts>’s > post-conflict environmental assessments in Afghanistan > <https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/disasters-conflicts/where-we-work/afghanistan> > , Iraq > <https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/disasters-conflicts/where-we-work/iraq> > , Gaza > <https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/environmental-assessment-areas-disengaged-israel-gaza-strip>, > > and Sudan > <https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/disasters-conflicts/where-we-work/sudan>show > > that destruction of the environment or disruption of ecosystem services > <https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2017/10/middle-eastern-wars-protect-civilians-protect-environmental-infrastructure/> > hinders > the recovery of the civilian population. Any geoengineering technology on > a scale large enough to shift the global climate has the potential to > inflict damage of the same magnitude. > > Depending upon the type of technology used, geoengineering could incur the > same level of cross-border environmental destruction and loss of functional > sovereignty as a war. But war is waged with intent to harm; and > geoengineering might be deployed without that intent. However, that is a > distinction without a difference, if it causes involuntary environmental > change that affects the security and material well-being of states, just > like the use of violent force. > > [image: SPICE] > *Towards a “Just Geoengineering” Theory* > > The centuries-long intellectual and legal history > <https://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/> of just war theory provides ethical > guidance for decision-making about the destructive forces of war. Three > of its principles apply to geoengineering: competent authority, > proportionality, and discrimination. > > - *Competent authority*: Only the legitimate government of a sovereign > state—in conjunction with scientists, inter-governmental organizations, > and > other stakeholders—can justly decide to use geoengineering. Any rogue > actors > > <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy/> > are > not legitimate. > - *Proportionality:* Any hoped-for ecological and economic benefits > gained by deployment of geoengineering must outweigh the ecological and > economic risks. In other words, geoengineering must make the problem > better, not worse. > - *Discrimination:* The government cannot benefit its own people at > the environmental expense of others, and collateral damage must be > minimized. > > Drawing on these three principles, we can formulate a Just Geoengineering > Theory with two sets of guidelines: (1) on the decision to deploy—“jus ad > climate”—following the model of *jus ad bellum*, law governing the > decision to resort to force; and (2) on how the method should be > deployed–“jus in climate”—following the model of *jus in bello*, law > governing the conduct of war. > *Jus ad climate:* > > - The state must be facing a major climate change-related security > emergency in order to justify deploying geoengineering technologies from > the global commons. The competent authority must determine a > threshold—such > as lost lives or economic productivity—that determines whether the > emergency is “major” enough to justify the use of geoengineering. > - The decision must be made first at the national level, and then > subject to international consent. States do not normally submit their > national security decisions to the approval of other states, but > geoengineering technologies are not like other weapons due to their unique > combination of global reach, potential for nonlinear effect, and > implications for the fundamental livability of our planet. > - The selected technology should have a reasonable chance of success, > according to the best available scientific expertise. If this cannot be > determined, then its use is not just, and the precautionary principle > <http://sehn.org/precautionary-principle/>—avoid harm to environment > or human health—must be applied. > - Any geoengineering attempt must meet the double-effect criteria: > only the good result is intended; the bad is not a means to the good, and > the deploying state is not engaging in harm for harm’s sake. > > *Jus in climate:* > > - The chosen method must be designed to inflict only the minimum > ecological disruption necessary to offset the climate emergency. According > to the just war principle of proportionality, states may use only the > amount of force necessary to achieve their goal. When applied to > geoengineering, determining this minimum requires input from scientists > and > stakeholders. > - The geoengineering method must yield greater good than harm globally > (not just to the country deploying it); and do so starting with the first > year of deployment. If not, it must be discontinued as ineffective or > unjust. A short time threshold to prove the technology is critical, > because unjust or unworkable strategies can cause significant > environmental > and economic damage, on top of the climate change effects they are trying > to mitigate. > > *There’s No Planet B* > > Right now, climate change-related security threats are increasing, while > mitigation and adaptation efforts are not keeping pace. Eventually, > geoengineering will start to look like viable climate manipulation > measures, cloaked in national security; already the U.S. Congress is > considering expanding such research > <https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4586?r=1402> in > the name of national security. However, law and custom require states to > keep > environmental harm from negatively affecting other states > <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2486421>, and > geoengineering deployed from the global commons offers no possibility of > limiting the effects to one country or region. > > So why don’t the countries of the world negotiate a new geoengineering > regime? Ultimately, we must do just that, but the growing strain of > nationalism in the world is pointing toward fewer treaties and less > cooperation on global issues, and signals a retreat from the liberal > international order needed to develop and implement a geoengineering > convention. In the absence of explicit international law, just > geoengineering theory can help to create a set of norms and customs to > guide decision-making by states and the international community. > > > > *Elizabeth L. Chalecki is an Assistant Professor of International > Relations at the University of Nebraska–Omaha and a Non-Resident Research > Fellow in Environmental Security at the Stimson Center. Her expertise lies > in the areas of climate change and security, global environmental politics, > and the intersection of science & technology and international relations. * > > *Lisa Ferrari is Associate Professor of Politics and Government at the > University of Puget Sound, where she teaches in the areas of international > relations, international ethics, and U.S.-Canadian relations. * > > *Sources: Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment, Internet Encyclopedia > of Philosophy, Scientific American, Science & Environmental Health Network, > SSRN, Strategic Studies Quarterly, The National Academies of Sciences > Engineering Medicine, The Washington Post, UN Environment, and U.S. > Congress * > > *Photo Credits: Principle of a space lens, April 2008 > <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Space_lens.png>, courtesy > of Mikael Häggström; The SPICE Project, September 2011 > <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SPICE_SRM_overview.jpg>, courtesy > of user Hughhunt. * > -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/51e8f4b0-6c83-4902-914c-593479054903%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
