Picking our poison: A conditional defense of geoengineering

Social Philosophy and Policy 38 (2):11-28 (2021)

Abstract

Geoengineering involves intentionally modifying the environment on a massive scale and is typically proposed as a last resort to prevent catastrophic harms caused by climate change. Critics argue that there are powerful moral reasons against researching, let alone undertaking, geoengineering. Perhaps most notably, Stephen Gardiner argues that even if we are forced to choose between allowing a climate catastrophe or geoengineering—and geoengineering is the less harmful option—it could still be the case that we ought not to geoengineer. This essay argues for a conditional: if we are indeed forced to choose between catastrophic environmental harm and the less harmful option of geoengineering, then we ought to geoengineer.

Download options

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,879

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-06-17

Downloads
3 (#1,368,549)

6 months
3 (#197,582)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Christopher Freiman
College of William and Mary

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Distributive Justice, Geoengineering and Risks.Pak-Hang Wong - 2014 - The Climate Geoengineering Governance Working Papers.
Institutional Legitimacy and Geoengineering Governance.Daniel Edward Callies - 2018 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 21 (3):324-340.
Geoengineering as Collective Experimentation.Jack Stilgoe - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (3):851-869.
Consenting to Geoengineering.Pak-Hang Wong - 2016 - Philosophy and Technology 29 (2):173-188.
Indigeneity in Geoengineering Discourses: Some Considerations.Kyle Powys Whyte - 2018 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 21 (3):289-307.
A Critical Discourse Analysis of Geoengineering Advocacy.Tina Sikka - 2012 - Critical Discourse Studies 9 (2):163-175.