Winter 2017 (31.4) Response

The Comparative Culpability of SAI and Ordinary Carbon Emissions

Abstract: In his article “Carbon Emissions, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, and Unintended Harms,” Christopher J. Preston compares the culpability of carbon emitters versus that of geoengineers deploying stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). This comparison relies on a parallel between carbon emitters and SAI deployers that requires both to be agents. However, both are not. While the harms of geoengineering will be caused by culpable agents acting intentionally, the harms connected to climate change emerge out of the uncoordinated actions of billions of people. Taken as a large group, carbon emitters cause harm but do not constitute an agent. Taken individually, carbon emitters are agents but do not cause the harms of climate change. As a result, the parallel collapses, and Preston’s “surprising” conclusion is one that he is not entitled to reach.

Keywords: climate engineering, solar radiation management, stratospheric aerosol injection, carbon emissions, unintended harms, doctrine of double effect, culpability, agency.

Full responses available to subscribers only. Click here for access.

More in this issue

Winter 2017 (31.4) Essay

Looking Inward Together: Just War Thinking and Our Shared Moral Emotions

In this essay Valerie Morkevicius argues that just war thinking serves a social and psychological role that international law cannot fill. Law is dispassionate and ...

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 ...