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) • Review
Justice in Conflict: The Effects of the International Criminal Court’s Interventions on Ending Wars and Building Peace by Mark Kersten
In this book, Mark Kersten convincingly shows that the implications of pursuing “during-conflict justice” are varied and fluid rather than dichotomous and deterministic. The nuanced ...
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) • 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, ...