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
A Practically Informed Morality of War: Just War, International Law, and a Changing World Order
Just war, international law, and world order are all historically conditioned realities that interrelate with one another in complex ways. This essay explores their historical ...
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) • 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 ...