I did some applied work, on the same theme https://jetpress.org/v26.1/lockley.htm
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019, 16:58 David Morrow, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/51e8f4b0-6c83-4902-914c-593479054903%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-05X6WVuGJwG00HX1j%2BZuYZKi45zWJ8siETBKbQUjTwO9Q%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
