Abstract: In order to advance a neatly deductive argument, Christopher J. Preston must make a number of assumptions and framing decisions that exclude important practical points from the scope of his analysis. We do not criticize him for doing so, as these simplifications allow him to advance a concise argument about an ethically complex subject. However, as scholars of politics and law, we are interested in what this ethical argument means—and does not mean—for the messy politics of climate engineering. Accordingly, in our response we unpack the political implications of some of Preston’s assumptions and framing decisions in an effort to add a layer of practical richness to the abstraction of Preston’s analysis.
Keywords: climate engineering, stratospheric aerosol injection, doctrine of double effect, unintended harms, closeness thesis
Full response available to subscribers only. Click here for access.
More in this issue
Winter 2017 (31.4) • Feature
Carbon Emissions, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, and Unintended Harms
In this article, Christopher J. Preston compares the culpability for any unintended harms resulting from stratospheric aerosol injection versus culpability for the unintended harms already ...
Winter 2017 (31.4) • Response
Calculating the Incalculable: Is SAI the Lesser of Two Evils?
Mike Hulme responds to Christopher J. Preston, questioning whether it is possible to determine and quantify climate harms and to distinguish forensically between their causes.
Winter 2017 (31.4) • Essay
A Practically Informed Morality of War: Just War, International Law, and a Changing World Order
Just war, international law, and world order are all historically conditioned realities that interrelate with one another in complex ways. This essay explores their historical ...