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
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.
Winter 2017 (31.4) • Response
Bringing Politics into SAI
In this response, Sikina Jinnah and Douglas Bushey unpack the political implications of some of Christopher J. Preston’s assumptions and framing decisions in an ...
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 ...