Bringing Politics into SAI

Facebook Twitter Email
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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.

Facebook Twitter Email

Category: Climate Change, Issue 31.4, Response

Comments are closed.