Hi Ron,
I agree that CDR warrants attention from ethicists (and others). For those
attending the Berlin Climate Engineering Conference this week, there is a
session on the ethics of CDR that might be of interest:
http://www.ce-conference.org/ethics-carbon-dioxide-removal.
Best,
Toby
The Ethics
Subject: Re: [geo] Response to Svoboda and Irvine, J Reynolds
Hi Ron,
I agree that CDR warrants attention from ethicists (and others). For those
attending the Berlin Climate Engineering Conference this week, there is a
session on the ethics of CDR that might be of interest:
http://www.ce
Dr. Svoboda, list, and panelists
1. Thanks for the alert on this 1.5 hour panel. I hope that you
and/or others can report back on any comparisons found for the ethics of CDR
and SRM.
2. Curiously, a major news item relative to biochar just came to my
attention yesterday
Dr. Svoboda etal (adding Dr. Joseph)
Re this just identified Transparency report, whose title was
Global Biochar Market is Expected to Reach 300 Kilo Tons and USD 572.3
Million by 2020
Just in tonight, on the Yahoo biochar list, from Dr. Stephen Joseph (a
://twitter.com/geoengpolicyhttp://bit.ly/1oQBIpR
From: Toby Svoboda [mailto:tobysvob...@gmail.com]
Sent: 14 August 2014 22:20
To: geoengineering
Cc: Peter Irvine; J.L. Reynolds
Subject: Re: [geo] Response to Svoboda and Irvine, J Reynolds
Hi All,
Interesting discussion. First, regarding intention, much
Dr. Svoboda, cc list and others in this dialog:
1. I thank you and the others writing about a portion of the ethics of
Geoengieering. Your work is valuable.
2. But I am concerned that there has been only discussion of a portion
of Geoengineering - only about SRM. Not just in
, and Technology
email: j.l.re...@uvt.nl
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/
-Original Message-
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 12 August 2014 19:21
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Response to Svoboda
] Response to Svoboda and Irvine, J Reynolds
Ethics, Policy Environment
Volume 17, Issue 2, 2014
Response to Svoboda and Irvine
Full access
DOI:10.1080/21550085.2014.926080 Jesse Reynolds Published online: 08
Aug 2014
In this issue, Svoboda and Irvine (Svoboda Irvine, 20146. Svoboda, T
I'm sorry if I was unclear.
Intent and attribution are of course independent of each other, but both would
be relevant to attempts to secure compensation for post/mid-CE weather
disasters. Of the two, intent will be the far easier one to determine.
Again: Are there fundamental differences in
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Response to Svoboda and Irvine, J Reynolds
Ethics, Policy Environment
Volume 17, Issue 2, 2014
Response to Svoboda and Irvine
Full access
DOI:10.1080/21550085.2014.926080 Jesse Reynolds Published online: 08 Aug
2014
In this issue, Svoboda and Irvine (Svoboda
Ethics, Policy Environment
Volume 17, Issue 2, 2014
Response to Svoboda and Irvine
Full access
DOI:10.1080/21550085.2014.926080 Jesse Reynolds
Published online: 08 Aug 2014
In this issue, Svoboda and Irvine (Svoboda Irvine, 20146. Svoboda,
T., Irvine, P. (2014). Ethical and technical
How and why do the challenges of compensation for solar geoengineering
damage fundamentally differ from the challenges associated with
compensation for damages associated greenhouse gas or tropospheric aerosol
emissions that are byproducts of industrial activity?
The main differences that I see
Level and intentionality of contribution is one component. Provable attribution
is another, which is also relevant to climate engineering: if Weather Disaster
X happens six months after the onset of SRM, how can it be proven that WDX was
(or was not) triggered by SRM?
It may be useful to look
How does whether the intervention was intentional vs. merely knowing affect
the attribution problem?
Attribution of effects to causes in physical systems is independent of
motivations.
In either case, damaging third parties was not the goal. In both cases
(intentionally vs knowingly causing
I'm surprised that nobody ever seems to mention that,
philosophically, geoengineering is rather like the trolley problem
(particularly the 'fat man' case).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
Consideration of this seems particularly appropriate to earlier
discussions on this thread.
A
: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 3:55 PM
To: Ken Caldeira
Cc: Jamais Cascio; geoengineering; Irvine, Peter; tsvob...@fairfield.edu
Subject: Re: [geo] Response to Svoboda and Irvine, J Reynolds
I'm
If I emit CO2 with the intent of changing climate versus the intent of
driving to work, does that change anything relevant to compensation or
attribution issues?
Forgive the long post, but it's actually a very complex question. Also, I'm
wearing my U.S. lawyer's hat (but this is a
17 matches
Mail list logo
