Abstract: Christopher J. Preston’s use of the doctrine of double effect to claim that hypothetical climate engineers might very well be less culpable for climate harms than those who continue to emit greenhouse gases is unpersuasive. His argument rests shakily on the ability to determine and quantify climate harms and to distinguish forensically between their causes. He is also largely silent about the distributional effects of these harms and their ethical and political ramifications.
Keywords: climate engineering; stratospheric aerosol injection; doctrine of double effect; unintended harms; distributional climate impacts
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
Bringing Politics into SAI
In this response, Sikina Jinnah and Douglas Bushey unpack the political implications of some of Christopher J. Preston’s assumptions and framing decisions in an ...
Winter 2017 (31.4) • Review
Ethics and Cyber Warfare: The Quest for Responsible Security in the Age of Digital Warfare by George Lucas
George Lucas’s Ethics and Cyber Warfare contributes much-needed scaffolding for discussions about cyber governance. He introduces a new category of cyber conflict, identifies emerging ...