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) • 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 ...
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.