Carbon Emissions, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, and Unintended Harms

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 479-493 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Preston
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Carbon Emissions ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Double Effect ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol ◽  
Doctrine Of Double Effect ◽  
Climate Engineering ◽  
Moral Importance ◽  
First Time ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection

AbstractIn the rapidly expanding literature on the ethics of climate engineering, a lot has been made of the fact that stratospheric aerosol injection would for the first time create a world whose climate had been intentionally shaped by deliberate human decisions. Intention has always mattered in ethics. Due to the importance of intention in assigning culpability for harms, one might expect that the moral responsibility for any harms created during an attempt to reconstruct the global climate using stratospheric aerosols would be considerable. This article investigates such an expectation by making a comparison between the culpability for any unintended harms resulting from stratospheric aerosol injection and culpability for the unintended harms already taking place due to carbon emissions. To make this comparison, both types of unintended harms are viewed through the lens of the doctrine of double effect. The conclusion reached goes against what many might expect. The article closes by suggesting that a good way to read this surprising conclusion is that it points toward the continuing moral importance of prioritizing emission reductions.

Consequentialism, Moral Responsibility, and the Intention/ Foresight Distinction

Utilitas ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Oakley ◽  
Dean Cocking
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Moral Status ◽  
Double Effect ◽  
Doctrine Of Double Effect ◽  
Moral Significance ◽  
Moral Relevance ◽  
Moral Difference

In many recent discussions of the morality of actions where both good and bad consequences foreseeably ensue, the moral significance of the distinction between intended and foreseen consequences is rejected. This distinction is thought to bear on the moral status of actions by those who support the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE). According to this doctrine, roughly speaking, to perform an action intending to bring about a particular bad effect as a means to some commensurate good end is impermissible, while performing an action where one intends only this good end and merely foresees the bad as an unintended sideeffect may be permissible. Consequentialists argue that this is a distinction which makes no moral difference to the evaluation of the initial act in the two cases, given that the overall consequences are the same in each case. In this paper we aim to show that a standard consequentialist line of argument against the moral relevance of the intention/foresight distinction fails. Consequentialists commonly reject the moral relevance of this distinction on the grounds that there is no asymmetry in moral responsibility between intending and foreseeing evil. We argue that even if this claim about moral responsibility is correct, it does not entail, as many Consequentialists believe, that there is no moral asymmetry between acts of intended and foreseen evil. We go on to argue that those consequentialists who do concede the moral relevance of the intention/foresight distinction at the level of agent evaluations cannot consistently make such a concession, and that such a position is in any case untenable, because it entails a complete severance of important conceptual connections between act and agent evaluations.

scholarly journals Effects of opinion statements on laypeople's acceptance of a climate engineering technology. Comparing the source credibility of researchers, politicians and a citizens' jury

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (01) ◽  
pp. A03
Author(s):  
Geraldine Klaus ◽  
Lisa Oswald ◽  
Andreas Ernst ◽  
Christine Merk
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
Source Credibility ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol ◽  
Message Content ◽  
Climate Engineering ◽  
Engineering Technology ◽  
Low Levels ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Positive Effect ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection

To examine the influence of different actors' fictitious statements about research and deployment of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), we conducted an online survey in Germany. Participants assess researchers and a citizens' jury to be more credible than politicians. Credibility has a strong positive effect on SAI acceptance in both pro-SAI and contra-SAI conditions. Reading the statement against SAI-deployment led to significantly lower acceptance scores compared to reading the pro-statement. However, the difference between messages was unexpectedly small, indicating that the message content was not fully adopted while underlying traits and attitudes mainly shaped acceptance even despite, or because of, low levels of knowledge.

The Comparative Culpability of SAI and Ordinary Carbon Emissions

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 495-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holly Lawford-Smith
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Carbon Emissions ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol ◽  
Large Group ◽  
Group Carbon ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection

AbstractIn his article “Carbon Emissions, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, and Unintended Harms,” Christopher J. Preston compares the culpability of carbon emitters versus that of geoengineers deploying stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). This comparison relies on a parallel between carbon emitters and SAI deployers that requires both to be agents. However, both are not. While the harms of geoengineering will be caused by culpable agents acting intentionally, the harms connected to climate change emerge out of the uncoordinated actions of billions of people. Taken as a large group, carbon emitters cause harm but do not constitute an agent. Taken individually, carbon emitters are agents but do not cause the harms of climate change. As a result, the parallel collapses, and Preston's “surprising” conclusion is one that he is not entitled to reach.

Causation and Ethics

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolina Sartorio
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Moral Theory ◽  
Double Effect ◽  
Doctrine Of Double Effect ◽  
The Family ◽  
Potential Applications ◽  
Killing And Letting Die ◽  
Letting Die

This article examines potential applications of the concept of cause to some central ethical concepts, views, and problems. In particular, it discusses the role of causation in the family of views known as consequentialism, the distinction between killing and letting die, the doctrine of double effect, and the concept of moral responsibility. The article aims to examine the extent to which an appeal to the concept of cause contributes to elucidating moral notions or to increasing the plausibility of moral views. Something that makes this task interestingly complex is the fact that the notion of causation itself is controversial and difficult to pin down. As a result, in some cases the success of its use in moral theory hinges on how certain debates about causation are resolved.

scholarly journals Updated and outdated reservations about research into stratospheric aerosol injection

2021 ◽  
Vol 164 (3-4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wake Smith ◽  
Claire Henly
Keyword(s):  
Recent Literature ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Slippery Slope ◽  
Lock In ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection

AbstractIn this paper, we seek to ground discussions of the governance of stratospheric aerosol injection research in recent literature about the field including an updated understanding of the technology’s deployment logistics and scale, pattern of effects, and research pathways. Relying upon this literature, we evaluate several common reservations regarding the governance of pre-deployment research and testing including covert deployment, technological lock-in, weaponization, slippery slope, and the blurry line between research and deployment. We conclude that these reservations are no longer supported by literature. However, we do not argue that there is no reason for concern. Instead, we enumerate alternative bases for caution about research into stratospheric aerosol injection which are supported by an up-to-date understanding of the literature. We conclude that in order to establish the correct degree and type of governance for stratospheric aerosol injection research, the research community must focus its attention on these well-grounded reservations. However, while these reservations are supported and warrant further attention, we conclude that none currently justifies restrictive governance of early-stage stratospheric aerosol injection research.

scholarly journals Impacts of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering strategy on Caribbean coral reefs

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 523-532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhihua Zhang ◽  
Andy Jones ◽  
M. James C. Crabbe
Keyword(s):  
Coral Reefs ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Marine Species ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol ◽  
Solar Irradiation ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Hurricane Damage ◽  
Carbon Emissions Reduction ◽  
Caribbean Coral Reefs ◽  
First Time

Purpose Currently, negotiation on global carbon emissions reduction is very difficult owing to lack of international willingness. In response, geoengineering (climate engineering) strategies are proposed to artificially cool the planet. Meanwhile, as the harbor around one-third of all described marine species, coral reefs are the most sensitive ecosystem on the planet to climate change. However, until now, there is no quantitative assessment on the impacts of geoengineering on coral reefs. This study aims to model the impacts of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering on coral reefs. Design/methodology/approach The HadGEM2-ES climate model is used to model and evaluate the impacts of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering on coral reefs. Findings This study shows that (1) stratospheric aerosol geoengineering could significantly mitigate future coral bleaching throughout the Caribbean Sea; (2) Changes in downward solar irradiation, sea level rise and sea surface temperature caused by geoengineering implementation should have very little impacts on coral reefs; (3) Although geoengineering would prolong the return period of future hurricanes, this may still be too short to ensure coral recruitment and survival after hurricane damage. Originality/value This is the first time internationally to quantitatively assess the impacts of geoengineering on coral reefs.

scholarly journals Climate engineering and the ocean: effects on biogeochemistry and primary production

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siv K. Lauvset ◽  
Jerry Tjiputra ◽  
Helene Muri
Keyword(s):  
Primary Production ◽  
Radiative Forcing ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol ◽  
Climate Impacts ◽  
Environmental Drivers ◽  
Earth System ◽  
Climate Engineering ◽  
Mean Sea Surface ◽  
Radiation Management

Abstract. Here we use an Earth System Model with interactive biogeochemistry to project future ocean biogeochemistry impacts from large-scale deployment of three different radiation management (RM) climate engineering (also known as geoengineering) methods: stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), marine sky brightening (MSB), and cirrus cloud thinning (CCT). We apply RM such that the change in radiative forcing in the RCP8.5 emission scenario is reduced to the change in radiative forcing in the RCP4.5 scenario. The resulting global mean sea surface temperatures in the RM experiments are comparable to those in RCP4.5, but there are regional differences. The forcing from MSB, for example, is applied over the oceans, so the cooling of the ocean is in some regions stronger for this method of RM than for the others. Changes in ocean primary production are much more variable, but SAI and MSB give a global decrease comparable to RCP4.5 (~ 6 % in 2100 relative to 1971–2000), while CCT give a much smaller global decrease of ~ 3 %. The spatially inhomogeneous changes in ocean primary production are partly linked to how the different RM methods affect the drivers of primary production (incoming radiation, temperature, availability of nutrients, and phytoplankton) in the model. The results of this work underscores the complexity of climate impacts on primary production, and highlights that changes are driven by an integrated effect of multiple environmental drivers, which all change in different ways. These results stress the uncertain changes to ocean productivity in the future and advocates caution at any deliberate attempt for large-scale perturbation of the Earth system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document