is closely related to the issues of justice and fairness, as the individuals who have emitted the least
are often the ones who are, or will be, most vulnerable to the effects of climate change [125,
126]. The complex issue of assigning responsibility is compounded by asymmetric power relationships, creating a severe challenge to global
cooperation on these issues. It is not possible, and
is often even irrational, for poorer nations to fund
climate adaptation strategies, not to mention mitigation [69]. In addition, it can be considered unfair
and unreasonable to expect poorer nations to sacrifice necessities when no such sacrifices were
made by richer countries, who have been reluctant
to sacrifice even luxuries [87].
Ethical Implications of Geoengineering -
Geoengineering as a strategy to alleviate anthropogenic climate change has received considerable
attention from philosophers. Discussions of
geoengineering face definitional complications
as it is not necessarily clear where geoengineering
falls within the mitigation/adaptation spectrum. In
addition, the two types of geoengineering strategies (SRM and CDR) are very different, with very
different ethical implications and unique suites of
problems and advantages.
The Royal Society defines geoengineering as
“deliberate, large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment in order to counteract anthropogenic climate change” ([208], p. 1). A set of key
characteristics have been identified to help distinguish geoengineering from other practices. For
instance, according to Thomas Schelling,
geoengineering must include three features:
“global,” “intentional,” and “unnatural” ([209],
pp. 304–305; see [210] for a summary of definitions of geoengineering). These debates over
nomenclature matter as they have important consequences for how geoengineering is perceived,
treated, and practiced. For instance, the way
geoengineering is defined affects whether it is classified as part of mitigation or adaptation or as a
completely separate practice. In addition, this categorization has ethical consequences. Geoengineering
is often presented as being complementary to mitigation and adaptation, a third option for dealing with
anthropogenic climate change ([208], p. 57; [206],
p. 23). Clare Heyward [206] has argued that “criteria
such as ‘deliberate,’ ‘large-scale,’ or ‘unnatural’ do
not distinguish geoengineering, (from) either CDR
or SRM, (or) from mitigation or adaptation” ([206],
p. 24). She notes that afforestation, one of the techniques of CDR, has been considered to fall under
mitigation by the IPCC ([211], p. 10). In contrast
SRM technologies do not attempt to tackle GHG
concentrations, but instead attempt to “prevent climate change (or at least one key part of it) by keeping
global temperatures stable, despite the increased
GHG concentration. . . Thus, SRM is distinct from
adaptation” ([206], p. 26). Heyward’s analysis shows
that the different technologies that fall within the
remit of geoengineering vary significantly. It is crucial to be precise as to which type of geoengineering
technology is being referred to when the feasibility,
acceptability, or desirability of such technologies is
being discussed, let alone decided. For example, the
ethical implications surrounding afforestation or
reforestation are very different compared to stratospheric aerosol injections. The former would not
only be less risky but would help combat deforestation, provide habitat for species, and thereby
potentially contribute to biodiversity and would not
be a global intervention and could provide other
values as well such as aesthetic and/or recreational.
In contrast stratospheric aerosol injections would
involve significant uncertainty, have significant
justice issues surrounding who gets to decide
whether the technology is deployed, and have difficulty determining who is liable if something goes
wrong. SRM technologies in particular have received
strong criticism from environmental philosophers
[81, 100, 101].
It is also necessary to consider the direct ethical
implications of geoengineering. An influential
report by the Royal Society [208] highlights the
importance of ethics in determining the legitimacy
of geoengineering projects: “overall it is clear that
ethical considerations are central to decisionmaking in this field” (Shepherd et al. 2009, p. 39
quoted in [100]). In addition, the “analysis of
ethical and social issues associated with research
and deployment” has been listed as one out of
eight identified research priorities ([208], p. 53;
quoted in [100]). Gardiner has been one of the key
environmental philosophers analyzing the ethical
312
Air Pollution and Climate Change: Sustainability, Restoration, and Ethical Implications
are often the ones who are, or will be, most vulnerable to the effects of climate change [125,
126]. The complex issue of assigning responsibility is compounded by asymmetric power relationships, creating a severe challenge to global
cooperation on these issues. It is not possible, and
is often even irrational, for poorer nations to fund
climate adaptation strategies, not to mention mitigation [69]. In addition, it can be considered unfair
and unreasonable to expect poorer nations to sacrifice necessities when no such sacrifices were
made by richer countries, who have been reluctant
to sacrifice even luxuries [87].
Ethical Implications of Geoengineering -
Geoengineering as a strategy to alleviate anthropogenic climate change has received considerable
attention from philosophers. Discussions of
geoengineering face definitional complications
as it is not necessarily clear where geoengineering
falls within the mitigation/adaptation spectrum. In
addition, the two types of geoengineering strategies (SRM and CDR) are very different, with very
different ethical implications and unique suites of
problems and advantages.
The Royal Society defines geoengineering as
“deliberate, large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment in order to counteract anthropogenic climate change” ([208], p. 1). A set of key
characteristics have been identified to help distinguish geoengineering from other practices. For
instance, according to Thomas Schelling,
geoengineering must include three features:
“global,” “intentional,” and “unnatural” ([209],
pp. 304–305; see [210] for a summary of definitions of geoengineering). These debates over
nomenclature matter as they have important consequences for how geoengineering is perceived,
treated, and practiced. For instance, the way
geoengineering is defined affects whether it is classified as part of mitigation or adaptation or as a
completely separate practice. In addition, this categorization has ethical consequences. Geoengineering
is often presented as being complementary to mitigation and adaptation, a third option for dealing with
anthropogenic climate change ([208], p. 57; [206],
p. 23). Clare Heyward [206] has argued that “criteria
such as ‘deliberate,’ ‘large-scale,’ or ‘unnatural’ do
not distinguish geoengineering, (from) either CDR
or SRM, (or) from mitigation or adaptation” ([206],
p. 24). She notes that afforestation, one of the techniques of CDR, has been considered to fall under
mitigation by the IPCC ([211], p. 10). In contrast
SRM technologies do not attempt to tackle GHG
concentrations, but instead attempt to “prevent climate change (or at least one key part of it) by keeping
global temperatures stable, despite the increased
GHG concentration. . . Thus, SRM is distinct from
adaptation” ([206], p. 26). Heyward’s analysis shows
that the different technologies that fall within the
remit of geoengineering vary significantly. It is crucial to be precise as to which type of geoengineering
technology is being referred to when the feasibility,
acceptability, or desirability of such technologies is
being discussed, let alone decided. For example, the
ethical implications surrounding afforestation or
reforestation are very different compared to stratospheric aerosol injections. The former would not
only be less risky but would help combat deforestation, provide habitat for species, and thereby
potentially contribute to biodiversity and would not
be a global intervention and could provide other
values as well such as aesthetic and/or recreational.
In contrast stratospheric aerosol injections would
involve significant uncertainty, have significant
justice issues surrounding who gets to decide
whether the technology is deployed, and have difficulty determining who is liable if something goes
wrong. SRM technologies in particular have received
strong criticism from environmental philosophers
[81, 100, 101].
It is also necessary to consider the direct ethical
implications of geoengineering. An influential
report by the Royal Society [208] highlights the
importance of ethics in determining the legitimacy
of geoengineering projects: “overall it is clear that
ethical considerations are central to decisionmaking in this field” (Shepherd et al. 2009, p. 39
quoted in [100]). In addition, the “analysis of
ethical and social issues associated with research
and deployment” has been listed as one out of
eight identified research priorities ([208], p. 53;
quoted in [100]). Gardiner has been one of the key
environmental philosophers analyzing the ethical
312
Air Pollution and Climate Change: Sustainability, Restoration, and Ethical Implications