Download RobockEthicsOslo - Alan Robock

Ethical Aspects of
Climate Engineering
Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey
[email protected]
http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
Desire for
improved
well-being
Consumption
of goods
and
services
Impacts on
humans and
ecosystems
Consumption
of energy
Climate
change
CO2 in the
atmosphere
CO2
emissions
After Ken Caldeira
Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences
Recovery from
volcanic eruptions
dominates
Tropospheric
aerosols mask
warming
(global dimming)
Greenhouse
gases dominate
Alan Robock
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.pdf Department of Environmental Sciences
Solar
Radiation
Management
(SRM)
Carbon
Dioxide
Removal
(CDR)
Released February 14, 2015
Sponsors: U.S. National Academy of Sciences, U.S. intelligence community,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and
Alan Robock
Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Department of
Energy
Department of Environmental Sciences
Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences
We have to discuss separately
the ethics of climate engineering
research and implementation.
Research must be separated into
indoor and outdoor.
Robock, Alan, 2012: Is geoengineering research ethical? Peace and Security, 4, 226-229.
Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences
Ethics is different from science. It is based on values
rather than testable hypotheses. According to Tuana
(2013), there are at least five relevant dimensions of
justice:
Distributive justice
Intergenerational justice
Corrective justice
Ecological justice
Procedural justice
Tuana, Nancy, 2013: The ethical dimensions of geoengineering: Solar radiation
management through sulphate particle injection. Geoengineering Our Climate?,
https://geoengineeringourclimate.com/2013/06/11/the-ethical-dimensions-ofgeoengineering-solar-radiation-management-through-sulphate-particle-injectionworking-paper/
Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences
Distributive justice: Harms and benefits of an action
should be fairly or equitably distributed.
1. Should harms and benefits be shared equally, or are
differential impacts justified if the least well off are
better off than they were previously?
2. How do you measure harms and benefits?
Temperature only? Precipitation? How do you weight
them? Impacts on agriculture and water? Or should
there be some economic measure? Does length of period
matter? To society or to individuals?
3. If things get bad, is there a responsibility to use
climate engineering, even if there are harms?
Tuana (2013)
Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences
Intergenerational justice: Similar to distributive
justice, but compares harms and benefits to current
populations to those of future generations.
Corrective justice: Considers the extent to which
individuals or groups are morally deserving of impacts.
Based on responsibilities for emissions, that is
historical contributions to climate change, but by
country or per capita? Should benefits to the worst
off should be given more weight than benefits to the
better off? Can compensation be equitably ensured?
Ecological justice: Includes consideration of the
impacts on nonhuman life and on ecosystem
sustainability.
Tuana (2013)
Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences
I agree with all these aspects of justice,
but do not know how to address all of
them simultaneously.
For society to do this, Procedural Justice
is necessary.
Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences
Procedural justice: How to ensure that decision
procedures are ethical.
1. Rationales for policy decisions should be
transparent and public.
2. The decision process should be based on relevant
ethical principles.
3. The process should allow for a mechanism for
appeal and regulation to ensure fairness.
4. Must any just decision process be an
international process? Is the nation-state the
ethically relevant representative group for making a
just decision?
Tuana (2013)
Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences
Procedural justice, continued:
5. If there are individuals, groups, or nations who do
not consent to deployment, are they thereby more
deserving of compensation for resulting harms?
6. Is there ever a condition in which it would be
ethically acceptable for one group (e.g., a nation) or a
small federation to make the decision to geoengineer
without consultation with other groups/nations?
7. Who makes the decision about whether to test
or implement geoengineering, when to stop testing
or deploying, as well as what should be the target?
Tuana (2013)
Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences
My opinion
Indoor climate engineering research is ethical and is
needed to provide information to policymakers and society
so that we can make informed decisions in the future to
deal with climate change.
Outdoor climate engineering research, however, is not
ethical unless subject to governance that protects society
from potential environmental dangers.
Robock, Alan, 2012: Is geoengineering research ethical? Peace and Security, 4, 226-229.
Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences
Stratospheric Geoengineering
Benefits
1. Reduce surface air temperatures,
which could reduce or reverse
negative impacts of global warming,
including floods, droughts, stronger
storms, sea ice melting, land-based
ice sheet melting, and sea level rise
2.
3.
4.
5.
Increase plant productivity
Increase terrestrial CO2 sink
Beautiful red and yellow sunsets
Unexpected benefits
Each of these needs to be
quantified so that society can
make informed decisions.
Robock, Alan, 2008: 20 reasons why
geoengineering may be a bad idea. Bull. Atomic
Scientists, 64, No. 2, 14-18, 59,
doi:10.2968/064002006.
Robock, Alan, Allison B. Marquardt, Ben Kravitz,
and Georgiy Stenchikov, 2009: The benefits,
risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering.
Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19703,
doi:10.1029/2009GL039209.
Robock, Alan, 2014: Stratospheric aerosol
geoengineering. Issues Env. Sci. Tech. (Special
issue “Geoengineering of the Climate System”),
38, 162-185.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Risks
Drought in Africa and Asia
Perturb ecology with more diffuse radiation
Ozone depletion
Continued ocean acidification
Will not stop ice sheets from melting
Impacts on tropospheric chemistry
Whiter skies
Less solar electricity generation
Degrade passive solar heating
Rapid warming if stopped
Cannot stop effects quickly
Human error
Unexpected consequences
Commercial control
Military use of technology
Societal disruption, conflict between countries
Conflicts with current treaties
Whose hand on the thermostat?
Effects on airplanes flying in stratosphere
Effects on electrical properties of atmosphere
Environmental impact of implementation
Degrade terrestrial optical astronomy
Affect stargazing
Affect satellite remote sensing
More sunburn
Moral hazard – the prospect of it working would
Alan Robock
reduce drive for mitigation
Environmental
27. Moral authority – doDepartment
we have of
the
right to doSciences
this?
Stratospheric Geoengineering
Benefits
1. Reduce surface air temperatures,
which could reduce or reverse
negative impacts of global warming,
including floods, droughts, stronger
storms, sea ice melting, land-based
ice sheet melting, and sea level rise
2.
3.
4.
5.
Increase plant productivity
Increase terrestrial CO2 sink
Beautiful red and yellow sunsets
Unexpected benefits
Not testable with modeling or
the volcanic analog
Robock, Alan, Douglas G. MacMartin, Riley Duren,
and Matthew W. Christensen, 2013: Studying
geoengineering with natural and anthropogenic
analogs. Climatic Change, 121, 445-458,
doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0777-5.
Robock, Alan, Allison B. Marquardt, Ben Kravitz,
and Georgiy Stenchikov, 2009: The benefits,
risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering.
Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19703,
doi:10.1029/2009GL039209.
Robock, Alan, 2014: Stratospheric aerosol
geoengineering. Issues Env. Sci. Tech. (Special
issue “Geoengineering of the Climate System”),
38, 162-185.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Risks
Drought in Africa and Asia
Perturb ecology with more diffuse radiation
Ozone depletion
Continued ocean acidification
Will not stop ice sheets from melting
Impacts on tropospheric chemistry
Whiter skies
Less solar electricity generation
Degrade passive solar heating
Rapid warming if stopped
Cannot stop effects quickly
Human error
Unexpected consequences
Commercial control
Military use of technology
Societal disruption, conflict between countries
Conflicts with current treaties
Whose hand on the thermostat?
Effects on airplanes flying in stratosphere
Effects on electrical properties of atmosphere
Environmental impact of implementation
Degrade terrestrial optical astronomy
Affect stargazing
Affect satellite remote sensing
More sunburn
Moral hazard – the prospect of it working would
Alan Robock
reduce drive for mitigation
Environmental
27. Moral authority – doDepartment
we have of
the
right to doSciences
this?
I don’t think geoengineering will ever be implemented. How would
the planetary governance decision be made as to whether to
implement geoengineering, and if so how much? Whose hand would be
on the planetary thermostat?
The principle of informed consent governs medical interventions.
How could we get the informed consent of the entire planet?
If geoengineering were ever implemented, every climate extreme
would be blamed on the geoengineers. There would be no more “Acts
of God.”
Certainly the developed world is most capable of doing any
geoengineering implementation. The history of colonialism will make
the rest of the world wary of climate manipulations that are
presumably for their benefit.
Robock, Alan, 2012: Will geoengineering with solar radiation management ever be
Alan Robock
used? Ethics, Policy & Environment, 15, 202-205.
Department of Environmental Sciences
Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences
American Meteorological Society* and American Geophysical Union#
Policy Statement on Geoengineering
The AMS and AGU recommend:

Enhanced research on the scientific and technological
potential for geoengineering the climate system, including
research on intended and unintended environmental responses.
* 2009, readopted in 2013
# 2009, reaffirmed in 2012
Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences
American Meteorological Society* and American Geophysical Union#
Policy Statement on Geoengineering
The AMS and AGU recommend:

Enhanced research on the scientific and technological
potential for geoengineering the climate system, including
research on intended and unintended environmental responses.

Coordinated study of historical, ethical, legal, and social
implications of geoengineering that integrates international,
interdisciplinary, and intergenerational issues and
perspectives and includes lessons from past efforts to modify
weather and climate.
* 2009, readopted in 2013
# 2009, reaffirmed in 2012
Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences
American Meteorological Society* and American Geophysical Union#
Policy Statement on Geoengineering
The AMS and AGU recommend:

Enhanced research on the scientific and technological
potential for geoengineering the climate system, including
research on intended and unintended environmental responses.

Coordinated study of historical, ethical, legal, and social
implications of geoengineering that integrates international,
interdisciplinary, and intergenerational issues and
perspectives and includes lessons from past efforts to modify
weather and climate.

Development and analysis of policy options to promote
transparency and international cooperation in exploring
geoengineering options along with restrictions on reckless
efforts to manipulate the climate system.
* 2009, readopted in 2013
# 2009, reaffirmed in 2012
Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences
The United Nations
Framework Convention On Climate Change
1992
Signed by 194 countries and ratified by 188
(as of February 26, 2004)
Signed and ratified in 1992 by the United States
The ultimate objective of this Convention ... is to
achieve ... stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that
would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference
with the climate system.
Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences
The UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change
thought of “dangerous
anthropogenic interference”
as due to the inadvertent
effects on climate from
anthropogenic greenhouse
gases .
We now must include
geoengineering in our pledge
to “prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference
with the climate system.”
© New York Times, Henning Wagenbreth, Oct. 24, 2007
Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences
Climate change 
But does SRM
make it more
dangerous?
Dangerous?
Business as usual
Mitigation
SRM
CDR
Impacts, adaptation, and suffering
Time (yr)
2000
2100
Alan Robock
After John Shepherd’s “napkin diagram” Department of Environmental Sciences
At the Paris climate conference (COP21) in December 2015,
195 countries adopted the first-ever
universal, legally binding global climate deal.
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/paris/index_en.htm
Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences
Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences
London Sunset After Krakatau
4:40 p.m., Nov. 26, 1883
Watercolor by William Ascroft
Figure from Symons (1888)
“The Scream”
Edvard Munch
Painted in 1893
based on Munch’s
memory of the
brilliant sunsets
following the
1883 Krakatau
eruption.
Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences