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) • Essay
Slowing the Proliferation of Major Conventional Weapons: The Virtues of an Uncompetitive Market
Proliferation of major conventional weapons (MCW) is at best a waste of valuable resources and at worst fuel for more and bloodier conflicts. In this ...
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) • Review
Briefly Noted: When States Come Out: Europe’s Sexual Minorities and the Politics of Visibility
A brief review of Philip Ayoub's When States Come Out: Europe’s Sexual Minorities and the Politics of Visibility.