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) • 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 ...
Winter 2017 (31.4) • Review
Reconstructing Human Rights: A Pragmatist and Pluralist Inquiry into Global Ethics by Joe Hoover
In Reconstructing Human Rights, Joe Hoover locates the value of human rights in the work that they do in the world. He seeks to develop ...
Winter 2017 (31.4) • Essay
The Need for Governance of Climate Geoengineering
In this essay, Janos Pasztor explains some of the major ethical issues surrounding geoengineering and introduces the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative, a major new ...