Winter 2017 (31.4) Response

Calculating the Incalculable: Is SAI the Lesser of Two Evils?

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

On the Relationship Between the Ethics and the Law of War: Cyber Operations and Sublethal Harm

This essay examines the 2013 Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare in order to illustrate the importance of both ethical and legal ...

Winter 2017 (31.4) Review

Ethics and Cyber Warfare: The Quest for Responsible Security in the Age of Digital Warfare by George Lucas

George Lucas’s Ethics and Cyber Warfare contributes much-needed scaffolding for discussions about cyber governance. He introduces a new category of cyber conflict, identifies emerging ...

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 ...