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) • Essay
Introduction: The Roles of International Law and Just War Theory
This roundtable explores the complex relationship between the laws of war and just war theory, and emphasizes the continuing importance of maintaining parallel ethical and ...
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 ...