4.5 Review

Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/wcc.198

关键词

-

资金

  1. Divn Of Social and Economic Sciences
  2. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [0958095] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

After two decades of failure by the international community to respond adequately to the threat of global climate change, discussions of the possibility of geoengineering a cooler climate have recently proliferated. Alongside the considerable optimism that these technologies have generated, there has also been wide acknowledgement of significant ethical concerns. Ethicists, social scientists, and experts in governance have begun the work of addressing these concerns. The plethora of ethical issues raised by geoengineering creates challenges for those who wish to survey them. The issues are here separated out according to the temporal spaces in which they first arise. Some crop up when merely contemplating the prospect of geoengineering. Others appear as research gets underway. Another set of issues attend the actual implementation of the technologies. A further set occurs when planning for the cessation of climate engineering. Two cautions about this organizational schema are in order. First, even if the issues first arise in the temporal spaces identified, they do not stay completely contained within them. A good reason to object to the prospect of geoengineering, for example, will likely remain a good reason to object to its implementation. Second, the ethical concerns intensify or weaken depending on the technology under consideration. The wide range of geoengineering technologies currently being discussed makes it prudent that each technique should be evaluated individually for its ethical merit. WIREs Clim Change 2013, 4:2337. doi: 10.1002/wcc.198 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据