Hi Michael,
I don't believe it is necessary to secure the *consent *of everyone in order
for a policy to be ethically permissible. However, given that a
geoengineering policy could substantially impact various persons, it would
seem unfair to deny such persons an opportunity to have some input.
Hello Dr. Benford et al.,
The term is cumbersome but is technically precise. I believe that an effort
to move from discussing the general means of climate engineering to the
specific means is important as it may help in nailing down what is actually
possible and thus probable. The cost factor can
Hi Toby,
An ESAS Protocal may be a good *experimental debate* as the Eastern Siberian
Arctic Sea (ESAS) seems to be one of the best known weak-links in the
planet's ecosystem and it will most likely be the area which will produce
the first major methane eruption (tipping point). If you need
Michael:
Using Tropospheric Atmospheric Injection using Sulfates (PTAI-S; we need a
better term!) implies far higher expense, as the aerosols fall out within
days vs weeks or months for strato deposition.
That too is an ethical issue: cost and labor. But when we discuss ethical
issues: what
One more thing ... I question the use of the acronym
SAG (Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering), less because
geoengineering is a contested term than because the word sag has
obvious negative connotations. Instead, I suggest using the more
neutral SAI (Stratospheric Aerosol Injections).
Josh
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your feedback. I think that decisions about whether or not
aerosol geoengineering *ought *to be deployed in some situation would depend
on a host of issues that would need to be examined in detail, such as
whether there is an impending climate emergency, what the specific
Toby et al.,
D-5-W is a common intravenous (I.V.) fluid given to a trauma patient. It is
a 5% Dextrose (sugar) solution in water. This solution helps prevent the
body from converting stored body fat into needed energy (and thus preventing
a strong acid influx-and thus preventing a cascade of
Thank you all for the interesting and helpful feedback.
Michael mentions a case (a methane tipping point) in which deployment of SAG
might satisfy requirements of justice. Perhaps in certain scenarios, SAG
would be (or would be part of) a just climate policy, or at least a policy
that is less
Andrew--
Firstly, the dialysis metaphor is inappropriate, as the termination
shock is
likely more hazardous than a slower change that eventually reaches
the same
point.
Excuse me, but can you explain that statement? The termination shock
of dialysis is more hazardous than... a slower change
To be more specific on whiplash effects, by using examples:
Plants can't colonize quickly, so SRM termination is likely worse than
gradual climate change.
Human food supply could change suddenly, due to agriculture inertia (e.g.
wrong machinery), or sudden climate change. This is more serious
On the discontinuation argument:
we contend that intergenerational justice requires the present
generation to ensure that future generations have access to food,
water, shelter, and
education. If SAG is implemented and then discontinued, future
generations’ access to
these benefits could be
Two comments:
1. The discontinuation argument is generally based on there having been a
relatively large, initial start-up injection to rapidly bring global average
temperature down a good bit--so a 'wait and react approach.' In addition to
potential impacts from sudden discontinuation after
Just a quick clarification. Regarding our discontinuation argument, Dan
writes, Clearly the whole argument... revolves around the notion that
discontinuation might be substantially more harmful than not ever having
done anything. This single assumption seems highly uncertain...
I want to stress
Toby,
I'd like to focus on your third case, in which you argue that
stratospheric aerosol injections would violate principles of
procedural justice if pursued unilaterally. As you frame it, ANY
unilateral action at the international level would violate principles
of procedural justice, since
One of the reasons a fear of unilateral action seems a somewhat
unfounded is that an actor would have to keep up this global,
unilateral activity for a considerable amount of time-- i.e. decades
to centuries to have any sort of prolonged and meaningful effect on
global temperatures.
I cannot
My tuppence:
Firstly, the dialysis metaphor is inappropriate, as the termination shock is
likely more hazardous than a slower change that eventually reaches the same
point.
Secondly, a rarely-discussed scenario is that of the passive-unilateralist
axis, which seems perhaps the most realistic to
Yes, the link provided by Masa is an up-to-date version (aside from some
formatting changes, etc. in the published version).
Toby Svoboda
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Masa Sugiyama
s-m...@criepi.denken.or.jpwrote:
Here's the manuscript. (I don't know if this is the most up-to-date.)
Is it possible for someone to post the article here?
D
On Aug 15, 8:37 am, Toby Svoboda tobysvob...@gmail.com wrote:
List members might be interested in our recent article on ethics and
geoengineering:
Svoboda, T., K. Keller, M. Goes, and N. Tuana (2011), Sulfate Aerosol
Geoengineering:
Here's the manuscript. (I don't know if this is the most up-to-date.)
http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/~kzk10/Svoboda_PAQ_11.pdf
-Masa
On 8月16日, 午前1:04, Dan Whaley dan.wha...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it possible for someone to post the article here?
D
On Aug 15, 8:37 am, Toby Svoboda
19 matches
Mail list logo
