User:BennettCO/sandbox

Public Good
The goal of geoengineering is to reverse anthropogenic climate change through direct action. Because this technology would affect every region on planet Earth, there are many issues surrounding the ethics of implementing these technologies. Proponents argue that geoengineering is a public good. By definition, a public good does not require universal cooperation or permission. In addition, geoengineering as a public good requires that there is a universal net benefit. Many opponents argue that framing geoengineering as a public good is misleading.

Early scientific work suggests the probability of differential impacts, many of which would likely be negative. The likelihood of differential impacts negates the theory of universal net benefits; therefore geoengineering would not be a public good. Some regions may benefit economically under the current course of anthropogenic climate change while other regions may only benefit if geoengineering technologies are implemented. Interventions then could potentially be worse for some regions and they would prefer not to implement geoengineering technologies. There is a significant ethical dilemma because it is highly unlikely there would be unanimous consent for geoengineering. Without unanimous consent, the wealthier developed states or regions will ultimately win, while the poorer developing nations will lose. Individual rights are directly violated if each state is not allowed to decide their own fate. An emergency in one region may prompt that government to take direct action that may negatively impact another region that is not experiencing a climate related emergency.

Uncertainties
There are scientific uncertainties surrounding geoengineering. This technology may help one aspect of climate change while exacerbating another issue. Scientists agree that there are many unknowns in the research and data. Because data is lacking in the research of geoengineering it is empirically contentious to state that geoengineering is a universal benefit. Even if more research is carried out there will be differing opinions on which course to follow. Many different technologies, such as Stratospheric sulfate aerosols (geoengineering), or Cloud reflectivity modification may be rival. Problems will arise in deciding the best technology to implement. There are different impacts, intended and unintended, that comes with each differing technology. Choosing one course of action will benefit some more than others. Also, some effects may not take place for decades or centuries, we cannot possibly know all unintended consequences/side effects.

Opponents insist that geoengineering would be a waste of money, and that the money should instead be spent on abatement and adaption. Wealthier countries in the west were able to develop strong economies, free of carbon emission restrictions. Poorer developing parts of the world suffer economically and environmentally as a result of the wealthier western nations who freely developed strong economies without regard to the environment. Wealthier nations, such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain plan to pay scientists billions to prevent negative consequences of climate change, which they originally created, to avoid their own environmental and economic emergencies. Some believe that these wealthier nations should pay retribution and compensate the suffering countries rather than spend the money to ultimately help themselves through geoengineering. It is argued that these countries are self-interested and only focus on narrow, short-term economic goals. They frame their action as a public good on the surface when in reality this action will only serve to further manifest the underlying problems.

Governance
One of the main contentions in the geoengineering debate is the lack of proper governance. Proponents of geoengineering state that in order for research to be carried out, there needs to be legitimate, competent governance on research. In order to reduce the polarizing debate between NGO’s, scientists, and politicians a boundary needs to be developed to determine the difference between large and small interventions. Small-scale research should be the main focus of scientists who need to accept government authority. The current system of scientific self-regulation is insufficient (example: the rogue Canadian scientist who enriched the ocean with iron without government knowledge.

Stratospheric sulfate aerosols (geoengineering) may reduce climate-change risks faster than abatement, which is why some scientists argue small-scale research should be immediately carried out. Although there are scientific risks with geoengineering, the potential benefits of the technology outweigh the potential environmental risks of abatement, or worse, taking no action.

As of 2014 there is no adequate policy in place to govern geoengineering research. In response to the US government investigating geoengineering in the Vietnam War in 1977, the UN agreed that long lasting, sever, and widespread effects of geoengineering should be avoided. The area is defined as a few hundred kilometers, a duration lasting no more than a few months or a single season, and a “serious or significant disruption or harm to human life, natural and economic resources or other assets” needs to be avoided. It is important to note that governance does technically exist; yet it is very incomplete and new and competent governance will be needed if geoengineering research is to be carried out.

Current opinion in geoengineering governance is split. Some scientists argue that rather than focusing entirely on the scientists or the government oversight, the collective responsibilities lie equally on politicians, scientists, and funders or stakeholders. There needs to be anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion, and responsiveness from each group and the general public. Where predictions aim only at spelling out possible scientific positives and negatives, anticipation recognizes the complexity of the uncertainties between the science and society’s reaction. Reflexivity includes codes of conduct, moratoriums, standards, and bottom-up reflections. These reflections need to be extended from the scientists to include the funders and the politicians who need to be aware that the particulars of an issue may not be universal. Universality is important regarding the ethics of geoengineering Some scientists and politicians contend that the general public needs to be included in the debate if geoengineering research is to continue. Public dialogue between the public, scientists, and politicians is essential to ensure there is not a “tyranny” in policy making. Also, the general public will be heavily affected by research and implementation of geoengineering.

A notable proposed solution to the issue of international governance is the proposal of “allowed zones”. These areas would be open for experimentation under the conditions that the experiments do not have lasting impacts on regional or global climate and weather patterns. The scientists should provide the data to prove their experiment fit the definition.