Winter 2017 (31.4) Response

Bringing Politics into SAI

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) Essay

Just War Theory and the Laws of War as Nonidentical Twins

In this essay, David Luban examines the similarities, but even more the dissimilarities, between just war theory and the laws of war. Specifically, he argues ...

Winter 2017 (31.4) Review

Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy by Philippe van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght

Basic Income offers by far the most comprehensive and up-to-date discussion of universal basic income (UBI) available today, including a fascinating intellectual history of UBI, ...

Winter 2017 (31.4) Response

The Comparative Culpability of SAI and Ordinary Carbon Emissions

In this response, Holly Lawford-Smith points to the issue of agency in Christopher J. Preston’s analysis. She argues that while the harms of geoengineering ...