scholarly journals Taming the Climate Emergency: Geoengineering and Ethics

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanna Joronen ◽  
Markku Oksanen
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Moral Justification ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Rational Basis ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Policy Relevance ◽  
Ethical Point ◽  
Dangerous Climate Change ◽  
Radiation Management

In this article, we shed some light into two questions with regard to te idea of climate emergency and dangerous climate change: Presuming that the negative effects of climate change can occur abruptly we want to investigate, in particular, whether there is any kind of rational basis to the conclusion that a state of climate emergency would require geoengineering implementations such as solar radiation management (SRM). Related to this, we will pose the question whether there can be exemptions from conventional morality justified by climate emergency for instance to use such largely untested geoengineering methods like SRM. We will take a look at SRM from an ethical point of view and analyze the concept of climate emergency and its policy relevance in order to assess the moral justification for the implementation of SRM.

scholarly journals The Ethical Desirability of Geoengineering: Challenges to Justice

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Augustine Pamplany
Keyword(s):  
Food Justice ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Unequal Distribution ◽  
Risk Transfer ◽  
Ethical Point ◽  
Dangerous Climate Change ◽  
Radiation Management ◽  
Agriculture And Food

Geoengineering or climate engineering is defined as a deliberate and intentional intervention into the earth system to combat dangerous climate change. Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) are two dominant approaches in geoengineering. From an ethical point of view, both these approaches pose serious challenges to justice from the intergenerational, distributive and procedural point of view. Intergenerational equity and the risk-transfer to future generations suggest major challenges to justice in geoengineering. Abdicating our responsibility is a form of injustice to future generations. Unequal distribution of cost and benefits and benefits and harms is a major challenge to distributive justice in SRM. Paying compensation to those harmed by SRM is presented as a way out of ethical deliberations. But there are serious challenges with regard to compensation for SRM, such as, who ought to pay the compensation, who are the beneficiaries and how much to pay. Participation across vulnerable sections alongside indigenous people and their central involvement remains a concern of procedural justice. Food justice is at stake as the adverse impact of SRM on agriculture and food production is considered to be a major challenge.

Situating and Abandoning Geoengineering: A Typology of Five Responses to Dangerous Climate Change

2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (01) ◽  
pp. 23-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Heyward
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Government Organizations ◽  
Mitigation And Adaptation ◽  
Potential Strategy ◽  
Dangerous Climate Change ◽  
Radiation Management

Geoengineering, the “deliberate, large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment in order to counteract anthropogenic climate change” (Shepherd et al. 2009, 1), is attracting increasing interest. As well as the Royal Society, various scientific and government organizations have produced reports on the potential and challenge of geoengineering as a potential strategy, alongside mitigation and adaptation, to avoid the vast human and environmental costs that climate change is thought to bring (Blackstock et al. 2009; GAO 2010; Long et al. 2011; Rickels et al. 2011). “Geoengineering” covers a diverse range of proposals conventionally divided into carbon dioxide removal (CDR) proposals and solar radiation management (SRM) proposals. This article argues that “geoengineering” should not be regarded as a third category of response to climate change, but should be disaggregated. Technically, CDR and SRM are quite different and discussing them together under the rubric of geoengineering can give the impression that all the technologies in the two categories of response always raise similar challenges and political issues when this is not necessarily the case. However, CDR and SRM should not be completely subsumed into the preexisting categories of mitigation and adaptation. Instead, they can be regarded as two parts of a five-part continuum of responses to climate change. To make this case, the first section of this article discusses whether geoengineering is distinctive, and the second situates CDR and SRM in relation to other responses to climate change.

Towards a More Gender-Inclusive Climate Change Policy

2018 ◽  
pp. 354-369
Author(s):  
Farah Kabir
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Gender Equality ◽  
Gender Gap ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Least Developed Countries ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Humanitarian Response ◽  
Change Policy ◽  
And Gender

Climate change is a reality, and poses a serious long term threat to society and to the environment. Much has been written on the negative effects of climate change across the globe focusing on the greater vulnerability of least developed countries and developing countries. Numerous studies back up the argument that “countries that are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change tend to be poorer with a wider gender gap. In contrast, countries that rank high in environmental performance and gender equality, are among the richest nations of the world” (Samy, 2011, p. 100). Women are often denied of their basic rights due to discriminatory social practices and gender blind policies. Impacts of climate change affect life and livelihood of women, and diverse work responsibilities of women augment their exposure to climate hazards. Due to less access or rights to financial and productive resources, information and services that may help them cope with impacts of stresses and shocks, are not present as a result of the gaps in policies, development agendas, thus leaving women in a greater vulnerable condition. Primarily, these are the reasons slowing the progress on achieving overall gender equality. The objective of this paper is to look at the Post 2015 Arrangements. These are numerous international frameworks and agreements ie SFDRR, SDG and the Paris Agreement, that will determine sustainable development for humanitarian response and climate politics as well as policies for the next fifteen years. They focus on development from a climate change and gender equality point of view, in particular how the policies are enabling ‘gender equality', taking common but differentiated responsibilities, and equity, justice and fairness as principles.

Towards a More Gender-Inclusive Climate Change Policy

2018 ◽  
pp. 855-870
Author(s):  
Farah Kabir
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Gender Equality ◽  
Gender Gap ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Least Developed Countries ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Humanitarian Response ◽  
Change Policy ◽  
And Gender

Climate change is a reality, and poses a serious long term threat to society and to the environment. Much has been written on the negative effects of climate change across the globe focusing on the greater vulnerability of least developed countries and developing countries. Numerous studies back up the argument that “countries that are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change tend to be poorer with a wider gender gap. In contrast, countries that rank high in environmental performance and gender equality, are among the richest nations of the world” (Samy, 2011, p. 100). Women are often denied of their basic rights due to discriminatory social practices and gender blind policies. Impacts of climate change affect life and livelihood of women, and diverse work responsibilities of women augment their exposure to climate hazards. Due to less access or rights to financial and productive resources, information and services that may help them cope with impacts of stresses and shocks, are not present as a result of the gaps in policies, development agendas, thus leaving women in a greater vulnerable condition. Primarily, these are the reasons slowing the progress on achieving overall gender equality. The objective of this paper is to look at the Post 2015 Arrangements. These are numerous international frameworks and agreements i.e. SFDRR, SDG and the Paris Agreement, that will determine sustainable development for humanitarian response and climate politics as well as policies for the next fifteen years. They focus on development from a climate change and gender equality point of view, in particular how the policies are enabling ‘gender equality', taking common but differentiated responsibilities, and equity, justice and fairness as principles.

scholarly journals Anthropocenic Limitations to Climate Engineering

Humanities ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen Oomen
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Solar Radiation ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Climate Engineering ◽  
Engineering Research ◽  
Future Experimentation ◽  
Fundamental Objection ◽  
Climatic System ◽  
Radiation Management ◽  
And Control

The development of climate engineering research has historically depended on mostly western, holistic perceptions of climate and climate change. Determinations of climate and climate change as a global system have played a defining role in the development of climate engineering. As a result, climate engineering research in general, and solar radiation management (SRM) in particular, is primarily engaged in research of quantified, whole-Earth solutions. I argue that in the potential act of solar radiation management, a view of climate change that relies on the holistic western science of the climatic system is enshrined. This view, dependent on a deliberative intentionality that seems connected to anthropocenic notions of responsibility and control, profoundly influences the assumptions and research methods connected to climate engineering. While this may not necessarily be to the detriment of climate engineering proposals—in fact, it may be the only workable conception of SRM—it is a conceptual limit to the enterprise that has to be acknowledged. Additionally, in terms of governance, reliability, and cultural acceptance, this limit could be a fundamental objection to future experimentation (or implementation).

Towards a More Gender-Inclusive Climate Change Policy

2018 ◽  
pp. 525-540
Author(s):  
Farah Kabir
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Gender Equality ◽  
Gender Gap ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Least Developed Countries ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Humanitarian Response ◽  
Change Policy ◽  
And Gender

Climate change is a reality, and poses a serious long term threat to society and to the environment. Much has been written on the negative effects of climate change across the globe focusing on the greater vulnerability of least developed countries and developing countries. Numerous studies back up the argument that “countries that are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change tend to be poorer with a wider gender gap. In contrast, countries that rank high in environmental performance and gender equality, are among the richest nations of the world” (Samy, 2011, p. 100). Women are often denied of their basic rights due to discriminatory social practices and gender blind policies. Impacts of climate change affect life and livelihood of women, and diverse work responsibilities of women augment their exposure to climate hazards. Due to less access or rights to financial and productive resources, information and services that may help them cope with impacts of stresses and shocks, are not present as a result of the gaps in policies, development agendas, thus leaving women in a greater vulnerable condition. Primarily, these are the reasons slowing the progress on achieving overall gender equality. The objective of this paper is to look at the Post 2015 Arrangements. These are numerous international frameworks and agreements ie SFDRR, SDG and the Paris Agreement, that will determine sustainable development for humanitarian response and climate politics as well as policies for the next fifteen years. They focus on development from a climate change and gender equality point of view, in particular how the policies are enabling ‘gender equality', taking common but differentiated responsibilities, and equity, justice and fairness as principles.

Political Realism, Feasibility Wedges, and Opportunities for Collective Action on Climate Change

2021 ◽  
pp. 323-345
Author(s):  
Mark Budolfson
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Ethical Climate ◽  
Structural Features ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Political Realism ◽  
Ethical Point ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Climate Treaty ◽  
Cass Sunstein

This chapter raises objections to the argument that a highly unjust response to the problem of climate change is the best that we can currently hope for and is thus the solution that we should actively promote even from an ethical point of view. Such an argument has been put forward by a wide range of commentators in philosophy, economics, law, and international affairs including John Broome, Eric Posner, David Weisbach, and Cass Sunstein. Among other things, the author argues that the way in which this argument fails is both ethically and practically instructive, as its failure reveals how a realist approach to climate policy is consistent with a more equity-focused approach than is commonly appreciated. As a concrete illustration, it is explained how the lessons could be incorporated into a more ethical climate treaty architecture that shares structural features with proposals from William Nordhaus, Joseph Stiglitz, and others.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document