Abstract: In order to advance a neatly deductive argument, Christopher J. Preston must make a number of assumptions and framing decisions that exclude important practical points from the scope of his analysis. We do not criticize him for doing so, as these simplifications allow him to advance a concise argument about an ethically complex subject. However, as scholars of politics and law, we are interested in what this ethical argument means—and does not mean—for the messy politics of climate engineering. Accordingly, in our response we unpack the political implications of some of Preston’s assumptions and framing decisions in an effort to add a layer of practical richness to the abstraction of Preston’s analysis.
Keywords: climate engineering, stratospheric aerosol injection, doctrine of double effect, unintended harms, closeness thesis
Full response available to subscribers only. Click here for access.
More in this issue
Winter 2017 (31.4) • Response
Calculating the Incalculable: Is SAI the Lesser of Two Evils?
Mike Hulme responds to Christopher J. Preston, questioning whether it is possible to determine and quantify climate harms and to distinguish forensically between their causes.
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) • 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 ...