Andrew beat me to the punch posting this (thanks, Andrew!), but the
following link will allow up to 50 people to tunnel under the paywall:
https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Q6W8X8H4JG5BJUN8KRTW/full?target=10.1080/13698230.2020.1694220
David
On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 12:43:39 PM UTC-5,
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
Daniel Callies (now a post-doc at UC San Diego) just published a paper on
"The Slippery Slope Argument Against Geoengineering Research," which
concludes that "while we should be cognizant of the potential for research
to lead to undesirable deployment scenarios, engaging in research need not
on the world economy; a
> militarily enforced embargo on international trade in fossil fuels; and so
> on." All the more reason to drop the GE term say specifically what you are
> talking about.
> Greg
>
>
> --
> *From:* David Morr
; *To:* geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com >
> *Sent:* Monday, February 29, 2016 8:23 AM
> *Subject:* [geo] Geoengineering and Non-Ideal Theory
>
> http://paq.press.illinois.edu/30/1/morrow.html
> Geoengineering and Non-Ideal Theory
> by David Morrow and Toby Svoboda
I think George has written a great piece here, but I do want to quibble
with one thing. I suspect this is something that George knows but had to
oversimplify due to space constraints, but it's worth mentioning. George
writes, "Besides, the whole point of moral hazard is that people don’t make
ional+Service/@38.9357589,-77.0883777>,
Room 300 (SIS 300)
SPEAKER: David Morrow
TITLE: Is It Morally Permissible to Research Solar Radiation Management?
ABSTRACT: Yes.
LONGER ABSTRACT: The most pressing question in the governance of solar
radiation management (SRM) is what kind(s) of researc
Stuart Licht at George Washington University apparently spoke at the
American Chemical Society meeting today on a technique for extracting CO2
from the air and converting it into carbon nanofibers. Some highlights from
the AAAS press release (linked below):
* Licht says, We calculate that with
Hi Pete:
Building on the suggestions others have given, I'd add two more specific
things to study in more detail:
1. Potential high-damage side effects of SRM, such as a major decline in
the Indian Ocean monsoon.
2. Risks that would be slow to materialize, but that might make people want
to
GiveWell, a New York-based non-profit dedicated to finding outstanding
[philanthropic] opportunities recently took a look at responses to
potential global catastrophic risks. They list geoengineering research
and governance as an area especially worthy of funding.
The excerpt below comes from
This new open-access paper might be of interest to some on this list. I'd
be curious to hear people's reactions.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0869-2
Blanford G, Merrick J, Richels R Rose S. 2014. Trade-offs between
mitigation costs and temperature change. Clim. Chang.
FYI, the lead author of that paper, Dan Kahan, posted two additional blog
posts on culture, values, and geoengineering:
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/24/geoengineering-the-cultural-plasticity-of-climate-change-ris.html
, and
the ethical cost of solving the climate problem.
Rosemary Jones.
On Friday, 24 January 2014 19:26:49 UTC-8, David Morrow wrote
In an earlier thread, Ron had asked about ethicists' views on the
differences between CDR and SRM. I don't know of any detailed treatment of
the topic. I'd be grateful if anyone could point one out. For the reasons
I'll explain below, ethicists have focused most of their attention on SRM
or on
Ken,
I'm inclined to agree with your basic position, but the argument for
intergenerational discounting in *some kinds* of public policy is not just
sophistry. If we don't discount future benefits or losses, policies that
have us saving our money today to benefit people in the future will
Doug,
Interesting question. I'd have to think about it more; it's probably more
complicated than it appears. (What isn't?)
The basic issue is that on most ethical frameworks, one party may sometimes
have the right to insist that some other party refrain from harming them,
even when the latter
16 matches
Mail list logo
