https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X23000416
*Authors* Martin Sand, Benjamin P. Hofbauer, Joost Alleblas *22 March 2023* https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102236 Highlights • Locate geoengineering in the debate about ideal vs. non-ideal theory in climate justice. • Show that much criticism against ideal theories of climate justice are quixotic. • Interpret geoengineering as a techno-fix to the problem of non-compliance with climate duties. • >From this angle, we show that the employment of geoengineering leads to residual responsibilities. • Residual responsibilities might incur different climate duties or justify the search for other solutions to non-compliance. Abstract After years of missing the agreed upon goals for carbon reduction, we might conclude that global climate policies set infeasible standards to halt climate change. The widespread non-compliance of many signees with frameworks such as the Paris Agreement indicates that these frameworks were too optimistic regarding the signees’ motivation to act. One of the suggested ways out of this impasse, is geoengineering, which is seen as a “techno-fix” of the non-compliance problem, relieving signees and other actors of some, or most, of their mitigation duties. This paper scrutinizes different approaches towards climate mitigation that focus on behavioral change or on technological solutions. We argue that these different approaches do not originate from categorically different theories of climate justice. Indeed, seemingly realistic and seemingly idealistic proposals do not disagree on the substance of climate justice, but about what is to be considered feasible. Furthermore, by applying this dialectic lens on ideal vs. non-ideal theorizing in the context of climate justice, we show that (backward-looking) residual responsibility is an overlooked aspect of geoengineering as a (forward-looking) non-ideal approach to achieve climate justice. We will outline three possible consequences of this moral residue: 1) Residual responsibility can provide grounds to demand compensation, 2) it can constitute other forward-looking responsibilities (e.g., the maintenance of geoengineering technologies) and 3) it provides a reason to employ other techno-fixes equal in effectiveness and risks that do not sidestep the problem of non-compliance. Keywords Geoengineering, Responsibility, Techno-fix, Ideal theory, Non-compliance, Climate change *Source: Science Direct* -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHJsh99zEAVQS%3DS2gmJ-xEtoyZs%3DPNsTbFJC5QJrSyiJMdDTrw%40mail.gmail.com.
