Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Ethical Aspects of Climate Engineering

 | 
Gregor Betz
, 
Sebastian Cacean

Appendix 1

Detailed Reconstructions

Texte intégral

List of Theses and Arguments

  • 1 Thesis or argument is related to different argument clusters.

#

Title
Cluster

T1

R&D Obligation
diff.1

T2

Readiness for Deployment Desirable
Central R&D Justification

T3

Side-effects of R&D Negligible
Central R&D Justification

T4

No Alternatives to R&D (Readiness)
Central R&D Justification

T5

Principle of Instrumental Rationality
Central R&D Justification

T6

R&D Prohibition
diff.

T7

Preconditions of Permissible R&D
diff.

T8

Principle of Instrumental Rationality
diff.

T9

CE Deployment Wrong
diff.

T10

CE Easy
diff.

T11

CE Worsens Climate Impacts
diff.

T12

No Alternatives (Preemption)
Alternative R&D Justifications

T13

No National R&D Bans
diff.

T14

Mitigation First
Priority of Mitigation

A1

Making CE Technologies Ready
Central R&D Justification

A2

Specialisation
Central R&D Justification

A3

Deontic Opposition
diff.

A4

Readiness Not Desirable
diff.

A5

Side-effects Unacceptable
diff.

A6

Better Alternatives
diff.

A7

Specialisation
diff.

A8

Overwhelming Negative Side-effects
R&D Side-effects

A9

Mitigation Obstruction
R&D Side-effects

A10

Unstoppable Development
R&D Side-effects

A11

Commercial Control
R&D Side-effects

A12

Field Tests
R&D Side-effects

A13

Techno Escalation
R&D Side-effects

A14

Political Economy
R&D Side-effects

A15

Unilateral Deployment
R&D Side-effects

A16

Innovation Argument
R&D Side-effects

A17

Interest Groups
R&D Side-effects

A18

CE Hype
R&D Side-effects

A19

Undermining Better Options
R&D Side-effects

A20

Extent Uncertain
R&D Side-effects

A21

False Exclusiveness
R&D Side-effects

A22

No Need
diff.

A23

Lesser-evil Argument
Lesser-evil Debate

A24

CE as Conservation
Lesser-evil Debate

A25

Argument from Survival
Lesser-evil Debate

A26

Catastrophic Side-effects
Lesser-evil Debate

A27

Intention Makes a Difference
Lesser-evil Debate

A28

Compensation
Lesser-evil Debate

A29

Intentional Harm
Lesser-evil Debate

A30

Sick-patient Analogy
Lesser-evil Debate

A31

No Absolute Bottom Line
Lesser-evil Debate

A32

Ready CE Technologies Needed
350 ppm / Two-degree Target

A33

CO2 Level Reduction Needed
350 ppm / Two-degree Target

A34

Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change
350 ppm / Two-degree Target

A35

Catastrophic Sea Level Rise
350 ppm / Two-degree Target

A36

Climate History
350 ppm / Two-degree Target

A37

Mass Extinctions
350 ppm / Two-degree Target

A38

Worst-case Climate Sensitivity
350 ppm / Two-degree Target

A39

Efficiency Argument
Efficiency and Feasibility Considerations

A40

Do-it-alone Argument
Efficiency and Feasibility Considerations

A41

Easiness Argument
Efficiency and Feasibility Considerations

A42

Only Partial Offset
Efficiency and Feasibility Considerations

A43

Indirect Costs Underestimated
Efficiency and Feasibility Considerations

A44

Harming Others
Efficiency and Feasibility Considerations

A45

Termination Problem
Ethics of Risk

A46

No Long-term Control
Ethics of Risk

A47

No Irreversible Interventions
Ethics of Risk

A48

Retaining Options
Ethics of Risk

A49

Unseen Side-effects
Ethics of Risk

A50

Mitigation, Too
Ethics of Risk

A51

Never Perfect Foresight
Ethics of Risk

A52

Irreducible Uncertainties
Ethics of Risk

A53

Predictive Progress Possible
diff.

A54

It Might Get Worse
Ethics of Risk

A55

Human Error
Ethics of Risk

A56

Complexity of Earth System
Ethics of Risk

A57

Large-scale Field Tests
Ethics of Risk

A58

Socio-political Uncertainties
Ethics of Risk

A59

Short Deployment Conceivable
Ethics of Risk

A60

Distributional Effects
Arguments from Justice and Fairness

A61

Capabilities (Sen/Nussbaum)
Arguments from Justice and Fairness

A62

Difference Principle (Rawls)
Arguments from Justice and Fairness

A63

Egalitarianism
Arguments from Justice and Fairness

A64

Human Rights (Pogge)
Arguments from Justice and Fairness

A65

Overcoming Global Opposition
Arguments from Justice and Fairness

A66

Risk of High Climate Sensitivity
Arguments from Justice and Fairness

A67

Impediment to Mitigation
Side-effects of Deployment

A68

Amortisation Effect
Side-effects of Deployment

A69

Dual Use
Geopolitical Objections

A70

Climate Control Conflicts
Geopolitical Objections

A71

No Rethink
Criticism of Technology and Civilization

A72

Exploitation
Criticism of Technology and Civilization

A73

Technical Fix
Criticism of Technology and Civilization

A74

Ruling Nature
Criticism of Technology and Civilization

A75

Hubris Argument
Criticism of Technology and Civilization

A76

Loss of Intangible
Environmental Ethics

A77

Elementary Failure
Existentialist Arguments

A78

Conception of Ourselves
Existentialist Arguments

A79

Contempt for the Given
Religious Arguments

A80

Betrayal of the Divine Creation
Religious Arguments

A81

Avoiding Hasty CE Deployment
Alternative Justifications of R&D

A82

Specialisation
Alternative Justifications of R&D

A83

Fostering Mitigation
Alternative Justifications of R&D

A84

Specialisation
Alternative Justifications of R&D

A85

Planning Long-term R&D Strategy
Alternative Justifications of R&D

A86

Specialisation
Alternative Justifications of R&D

A87

Preparing Informed Decision
Alternative Justifications of R&D

A88

Specialisation
Alternative Justifications of R&D

A89

R&D First
R&D Neutrality

A90

R&D No Goal in Itself
R&D Neutrality

A91

R&D Related to Applications
R&D Neutrality

A92

Technology Neutral
R&D Neutrality

A93

Postpone R&D
No Alternatives to R&D

A94

Moratorium
No Alternatives to R&D

A95

Clandestine Research
No Alternatives to R&D

A96

Risk Transfer Argument
Direct Justifications of R&D Prohibition

A97

No Informed Consent
Direct Justifications of R&D Prohibition

A98

True Motives
Direct Justifications of R&D Prohibition

A99

Dilemma Generation
Direct Justifications of R&D Prohibition

A100

Against Dilemma Generation
Direct Justifications of R&D Prohibition

A101

Discriminating Prohibitions Unjust
diff.

A102

Argument from Reversibility
Priority of Mitigation

A103

Avoiding Dilemmata
Priority of Mitigation

A104

Polluter-pays Principle
Priority of Mitigation

A105

No Respect
Priority of Mitigation

A106

Worst Case
Priority of Mitigation

Theses in Full

1T1 R&D Obligation

2R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R ought to be carried out immediately.

3T2 Readiness for Deployment Desirable

4The CE technology T should be ready for deployment at a future point in time.

5T3 Side-Effects of R&D Negligible

6The side-effects of R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R are negligible as compared to T being [probably] ready for deployment in time.

7T4 No Alternatives to R&D (Readiness)

8There are no more appropriate alternatives to immediate R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R which bring about that T is probably ready in time.

9T5 Principle of Instrumental Rationality

10An action A ought to be carried out if the following conditions are met: 1. The objective O ought to be realised; 2. A [probably] brings about realisation of O; 3. There is no alternative action A' that would bring about realisation of O while at the same time being more appropriate than A; 4. The side-effects of A are negligible as compared to O [probably] being realised.

11T6 R&D Prohibition

12R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R ought not to be carried out (immediately).

13T7 Preconditions of Permissible R&D

14R&D into a technology under the aspect R may be carried out only if each of the following conditions is met: 1. There is a chance of achieving readiness for deployment; 2. The direct costs of R&D are reasonable; 3. The readiness for deployment of the technology outweighs, considering the probability that such readiness be actually achieved, the expected certain, probable, and possible side-effects of R&D; 4. It is desirable to have the technology ready for deployment.

15T8 Principle of Instrumental Rationality

16A goal-oriented action A should be carried out only if each of the following conditions is met: 1. There is a chance of achieving the objective targeted by A; 2. The direct effort of action A is reasonable; 3. The objective pursued by the action outweighs, considering the probability that the objective be actually achieved, the expected certain, probable, and possible side-effects; 4. The objective targeted by A is desirable.

17T9 CE Deployment Wrong

18A future deployment of the CE technology T is in any case (morally) wrong.

19T10 CE Easy

20Implementation of the CE technology is comparatively easy.

21T11 CE Worsens Climate Impacts

22It is certain that the future deployment of CE technologies might even worsen the most catastrophic anthropogenic climate impacts instead of alleviating them.

23T12 No Alternatives (Pre-emption)

24There are no alternative measures leading to the avoidance of a hasty deployment of the CE technology T while at the same time being more appropriate than immediate R&D into the latter under the aspect R.

25T13 No National R&D Bans

26The prohibition of R&D into the CE technology T should not be upheld and enforced vis-à-vis, e. g., German or European agents.

27T14 Mitigation First

28Mitigation, as a climate policy option, is preferable to CE deployment.

Arguments in Full

29A1 Making CE Technologies Ready

  1. The CE technology T should be ready for deployment at a future point in time.
  2. Immediate R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R [probably] brings about that T is ready in time.
  3. There are no more appropriate alternatives to immediate R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R which bring about that T is ready in time while at the same time being more appropriate than immediate R&D into the CE technology.
  4. The side-effects of R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R are negligible as compared to T being [probably] ready for deployment in time.
  5. R&D into a technology ought to be carried out immediately if the following conditions are met: 1. The technology should be ready for deployment at a future point in time; 2. Immediate R&D [probably] brings about that the technology will be ready for deployment; 3. There are no alternatives which bring about that the technology is ready in time while at the same time being more appropriate than immediate R&D; 4. The side-effects of R&D are negligible as compared to the technology being ready for deployment.
  6. Thus (from 1-5): R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R ought to be carried out.

30A2 Specialisation

  1. An action A ought to be carried out if the following conditions are fulfilled: 1. The objective O ought to be realised; 2. Action A [probably] brings about realisation of O; 3. There is no alternative action A' that would bring about realisation of O and is more appropriate than A at the same time; 4. The side-effects of A are negligible as compared to O [probably] being realised.
  2. Thus (from 1): R&D into a technology ought to be carried out immediately if the following conditions are met: 1. The technology should be ready for deployment at a future point in time; 2. Immediate R&D [probably] brings about that the technology will be ready for deployment; 3. There are no alternatives which bring about that the technology is ready in time while at the same time being more appropriate than immediate R&D; 4. The side-effects of R&D are negligible as compared to the technology being ready for deployment.

31A3 Deontic Opposition

  1. R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R should not be carried out (immediately).
  2. A certain measure M ought to be taken only if M is not prohibited.
  3. Thus (from 1, 2): It is false that R&D into the CE technology T ought to be carried out.

32A4 Readiness Not Desirable

  1. R&D into a technology under the aspect R may be carried out only if each of the following conditions is met: 1. There is a chance of achieving readiness for deployment; 2. The direct costs of R&D are reasonable; 3. The readiness for deployment of the technology outweighs, considering the probability that such readiness be actually achieved, the expected certain, probable, and possible side-effects of R&D; 4. It is desirable to have available an adequate technology ready for deployment.
  2. It is not desirable at all to have available at a future point in time a CE technology T that is ready for deployment.
  3. Thus (from 1, 2): R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R ought not to be carried out (immediately).

33A5 Side-effects Unacceptable

  1. R&D into a technology under the aspect R may be carried out only if each of the following conditions is met: 1. There is a chance of achieving readiness for deployment; 2. The direct costs of R&D are reasonable; 3. The readiness for deployment of the technology outweighs, considering the probability that such readiness be actually achieved, the expected certain, probable, and possible side-effects of R&D; 4. It is desirable to have available an adequate technology ready for deployment.
  2. The (probable) future readiness for deployment of the CE technology T by no means outweighs the expected certain, probable, and possible side-effects of R&D into T.
  3. Thus (from 1, 2): R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R ought not to be carried out (immediately).

34A6 Better Alternatives

  1. R&D into a technology under the aspect R may be carried out only if each of the following conditions is met: 1. There is a chance of achieving readiness for deployment; 2. The direct costs of R&D are reasonable; 3. The readiness for deployment of the technology outweighs, considering the probability that such readiness be actually achieved, the expected certain, probable, and possible side-effects of R&D; 4. It is desirable to have available an adequate technology ready for deployment.
  2. The direct costs of R&D into a CE technology are only reasonable if there are no better alternatives, i.e. if there are no alternatives to R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R that bring about that T will be ready for deployment in time while being more appropriate than immediate R&D into these technologies at the same time.
  3. There are more appropriate alternatives to immediate R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R which bring about that T is ready in time.
  4. Thus (from 1-3): R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R ought not to be carried out (immediately).

35A7 Specialisation

  1. A goal-oriented action A may be carried out only if each of the following conditions is met: 1. There is a chance of achieving the objective targeted by A; 2. The direct effort of action A is reasonable; 3. The objective pursued by the action outweighs, considering the probability that the objective be actually achieved, the expected certain, probable, and possible side-effects; 4. The objective targeted by A is desirable.
  2. R&D into a technology is a goal-oriented action.
  3. The goal of R&D into a technology is to establish readiness for its deployment.
  4. Thus (from 1-3): R&D into a technology under the aspect R may be carried out only if each of the following conditions is met: 1. There is a chance of achieving readiness for deployment; 2. The direct costs of R&D are reasonable; 3. The readiness for deployment of the technology outweighs, considering the probability that such readiness be actually achieved, the expected certain, probable, and possible side-effects of R&D; 4. It is desirable to have available an adequate technology ready for deployment.

36A8 Overwhelming Negative Side-effects

  1. One of the possible negative side-effects of R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R is that any reshaping of and technical intervention into nature may become tolerated.
  2. One of the possible negative side-effects of R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R consists in the serious impediment to mitigation.
  3. One of the possible negative side-effects of R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R consists in the deployment of T without any central and democratic decision to do so.
  4. One of the possible negative side-effects of R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R consists in the development of the CE technology T being controlled by big business instead of by democratic committees.
  5. One of the possible negative side-effects of R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R consists in its unilateral deployment.
  6. One of the probable negative side-effects of R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R consists in the necessity of carrying out large-scale field tests.
  7. One of the probable negative side-effects of R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R consists in its promoting business branches that are reactionary in terms of climate policies.
  8. The possible and probable negative side-effects SE1-SE7 clearly outweigh the sum of all [certain, probable, and possible] useful side-effects and the [probable] intended effect that technology T is ready for deployment.
  9. If some of the possible and probable negative effects N outweigh the [probable] intended effect O plus all positive side-effects P, then it is wrong that the side-effects of the relevant measure are, relative to the probable achievement of the objective, negligible.
  10. Thus (from 1-9): It is not true that: The side-effects of R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R are negligible as compared to T being [probably] ready for deployment in time.

37A9 Mitigation Obstruction

38R&D into the CE technology T impairs efforts to avoid climate change. (Keith 2000:276; Gardiner 2010:292; Jamieson 1996:333 et seq.; Robock 2008a, b; ETC 2009:34)

39A10 UNSTOPPABLE DEVELOPMENT

40Research into CE might create an internal dynamic which inevitably leads to deployment even if deployment is dispensable. Yet, one must be able to halt R&D into risk technologies at any moment. (Jamieson 1996:333 et seq.)

41A11 Commercial Control

42CE technologies might ultimately be controlled by big business that acts purely on the basis of commercial interest. This would lead to problems similar to those experienced in the pharmaceutical sector. (Robock 2008a; ETC 2009:29,34)

43A12 Field Tests

44R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R inevitably goes along with large-scale field tests which actually lead to deployment of T before T has been thoroughly probed. (Elliott 2010:11; Robock 2010)

45A13 Techno Escalation

46R&D into CE may sanction technical interventions into nature on any scale whatsoever. (Keith 2000)

47A14 Political Economy

48CE promotes the military-industrial sectors and the business branches that are the most reactionary in terms of climate policy. (Ott 2010a, b, d)

49A15 Unilateral Deployment

50R&D into CE might lead to unilateral deployment with catastrophic impacts. (Goodell 2010:195-7)

51A16 Innovation Argument

52R&D into new technologies such as CE triggers spin-offs and creates jobs.

  1. As a possible positive side-effect, R&D into the CE technology under the aspect R might lead to the creation of spin-offs and jobs.
  2. The potential creation of spin-offs and jobs, together with the intended achievement of readiness for deployment, outweighs the possible and probable negative side-effects SE1-SE7.
  3. Thus (from 1, 2): It is not true that: The possible and probable negative side-effects SE1-SE7 clearly outweigh the sum of all [certain, probable and possible] useful side-effects and the [probable] intended consequence that the technology T is ready for deployment.

53A17 Interest Groups

54With larger sums going into CE R&D, lobby groups that tend to be opposed to ambitious mitigation policies will be established and strengthened. (Corner & Pidgeon 2010:30)

55A18 CE Hype

56R&D into CE could trigger an outright CE hype. And the discussion of CE alone could undermine the motivation of realising costly mitigation and adaptation policies.

57A19 Undermining Better Options

58The financial and cognitive resources that are used for R&D into CE are not available for preparing and implementing mitigation policies.

59A20 Extent Uncertain

60The strength and existence of a negative feedback from CE R&D to mitigation are uncertain. (Corner & Pidgeon 2010:31)

61A21 False Exclusiveness

62CE and mitigation do not rule each other out. (Keith 2010)

63A22 No Need

  1. A future deployment of the CE technology T is in any case (morally) wrong.
  2. Given that the deployment of a technology is (morally) wrong in any case, it is not desirable to have available any whatsoever ready-for-deployment technology.
  3. Thus (from 1, 2): It is not desirable at all to have available at a future point in time a CE technology T that is ready for deployment.

64A23 Lesser-evil Argument

65SRM deployment, as compared to unstoppable climate change, may be the lesser evil.

  1. At some future point in time t, we may end up in a situation where (a) the worst possible impacts of the deployment of the CE technology T are clearly less severe than the worst possible consequences of not deploying it; where (b) relevant probability forecasts are not at our disposal; and where (c) the worst possible consequences of not deploying CE would in fact be catastrophic.
  2. If relevant probability forecasts are unavailable and if the worst possible consequences of a decision are actually catastrophic, one should choose the option for action with the comparatively best worst possible consequences. (version of the precautionary principle)
  3. Thus (from 1, 2): At some future point in time t, we may get into a situation where we should deploy the CE technology T.
  4. If we may get into a situation where a technology T ought to be deployed, the technology T should be ready for deployment in the future, provided that there are no more significant moral reasons against T being ready for deployment. (precautionary reasoning)
  5. There are no such more significant moral reasons against the readiness for deployment of the CE technology T.
  6. Thus (from 3-5): The CE technology T should be ready for deployment at a future point in time.

66A24 CE as Conservation

67Deploying CE might be the only remaining possibility of saving certain ecosystems. (Keith in Goodell 2010:39)

68A25 Argument from Survival

69Unstoppable climate change might endanger the survival of the entire human species. (Corner & Pidgeon 2010:32)

70A26 Catastrophic Side-effects

71CE is not the lesser evil. (Gardiner 2010:291)

  1. It is certain that the future deployment of CE technologies might even worsen the most catastrophic anthropogenic climate impacts instead of alleviating them.
  2. If an action A might bring about a further aggravation of the worst possible impacts of action B, the worst possible impacts of A cannot possibly be better than those of B.
  3. Thus (from 1, 2): It is certain that the worst possible impacts of the future deployment of the CE technology T are clearly worse than the worst possible impacts of not deploying CE.
  4. Thus (from 3): It is NOT possible that at a future point in time t we end up in a situation, where the worst possible impacts of the deployment of the CE technology T are clearly less severe than the worst possible impacts of not deploying CE.
  5. Thus (from 4): It is NOT possible that at a future point in time t we end up in a situation, where (a) the worst possible impacts of the deployment of the CE technology T are clearly less severe than the worst possible impacts of not deploying it; where (b) relevant probability forecasts are not at our disposal; and where (c) the worst possible impacts of not deploying CE would in fact be catastrophic.

72A27 Intention Makes A Difference

73Intentional interventions into the climate system are (morally) much worse than unintentional ones. (principle of double effect) (Keith 2000; Elliott 2010:18)

74A28 Compensation

75In the case of compensation, intentional interventions are not worse.

76A29 Intentional Harm

77Deploying CE involves harming some (rather than other) people; this reduces the ethical value of our lives. (Gardiner 2010:304)

78A30 Sick-patient Analogy

79The Earth could become a terminally ill patient whom we prescribe a highly risky, hardly understood therapy for seemingly being doomed to die anyway. (Lovelock in Goodell 2010:106)

  1. A terminally ill patient ought to be prescribed a highly risky therapy if such therapy is found to be the only treatment option.
  2. If, in the coming decades, greenhouse gas emissions remain unabated and if the climate sensitivity exceeds 6 ° C, the Earth, by about 2050, will resemble – in every relevant respect (especially as regards the fact that the situation cannot worsen) – a terminally ill patient for whom the only treatment option consists in a highly risky therapy (i.e., in analogy, in the deployment of a CE technology).
  3. If two situations are equal in every morally relevant respect, an option for action in one of these situations ought to be taken whenever the analogous option ought to be taken in the other situation.
  4. Thus (from 1-3): If, in the coming decades, greenhouse gas emissions should remain unabated and if the climate sensitivity should exceed 6 ° C, CE technology T ought to be deployed by about 2050.
  5. It is possible that, in the coming decades, greenhouse gas emissions will remain unabated and climate sensitivity will exceed 6 ° C.
  6. If it is possible to get into a situation where a technology T ought to be deployed, the technology T should be ready for deployment in the future, provided that there are no more significant moral reasons against T being ready for deployment. (precautionary consideration)
  7. There are no such more significant moral reasons against the readiness for deployment of the CE technology T.
  8. Thus (from 4-7): The CE technology T should be ready for deployment at a future point in time.

80A31 No Absolute Bottom Line

81In contrast to a terminally ill person, who, at worst, dies, anthropogenic climate impacts, no matter how bad they are, can always become worse.

82A32 Ready CE Technologies Needed

83Only with the help of a ready CE technology T can the atmospheric CO2 level be reduced to 350 ppm. (Hansen 2009; Greene et al. 2010)

84A33 CO2 Level Reduction Needed

85The atmospheric CO2 level should be reduced to less than 350 ppm within this century.

  1. CO2 concentration, which is approximately 380 ppm today (2010), is sure to increase further in the coming decades.
  2. Thus (from 1): CO2 reduction is required to achieve that concentrations are stabilized at less than 350 ppm.
  3. During the present century, CO2 concentration is not expected to decrease unless by means of appropriate technical interventions in the climate system (i.e. the carbon cycle).
  4. Thus (from 2, 3): CO2 stabilization at less than 350 ppm requires appropriate technical interventions to reduce concentrations.
  5. In the course of this century, the atmospheric CO2 concentration ought to be stabilized at less than 350 ppm.
  6. If a situation S is to be avoided/achieved and if S can only be avoided/achieved by bringing about M, then M ought to be brought about.
  7. Thus (from 4-6): It is (imperatively) necessary that the atmospheric CO2 concentration be reduced through technical interventions in the climate system.

86A34 Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change

87We ought to avoid dangerous climate change (with a sufficiently high probability).

  1. We can only avoid dangerous climate change (with a sufficiently high probability) if, in the course of this century, we succeed in stabilizing the atmospheric CO2 concentration at less than 350 ppm.
  2. If a situation S is to be avoided/achieved and if S can only be avoided/achieved by bringing about M, then M ought to be brought about.
  3. Thus (from 1, 2): In the course of this century, the atmospheric CO2 concentration ought to be stabilized at less than 350 ppm.

88A35 Catastrophic Sea Level Rise

  1. A permanent CO2 concentration above 350 ppm threatens to cause disintegration of the continental ice sheets.
  2. Disintegration of the continental ice sheets would cause a continuous sea level rise on the order of several metres per century for the coming centuries.
  3. A continuous sea level rise of several metres per century would definitely destroy the coastal towns. (It is not possible to adapt to such sea level rises.)
  4. A change of the climate system that leads to the destruction of coastal towns is a dangerous climate change.
  5. Thus (from 1-4): A permanent CO2 concentration above 350 ppm threatens to cause a dangerous climate change.
  6. Thus (from 5): We can only avoid dangerous climate change (with a sufficiently high probability) if, in the course of this century, we succeed in stabilizing the atmospheric CO2 concentration at less than 350 ppm.

89A36 Climate History

90Palaeo-climatic data testify that continental ice sheets might disintegrate at slightly higher global temperatures than today.

91A37 Mass Extinctions

  1. Global warming of even 2° C would shift and move the Earth's climate zones.
  2. A majority of the species would not be able to adapt to a shift and move of the climate zones within this century and would thus lose their natural habitat.
  3. Species losing their natural habitat will become extinct.
  4. A change of the climate system that leads to the extinction of a majority of the species is a dangerous climate change.
  5. Thus (from 1-4): Global warming of 2° C represents a dangerous climate change.
  6. We can only avoid global warming of 2° C (with a sufficiently high probability) if, in the course of this century, we succeed in stabilizing the atmospheric CO2 concentration at less than 350ppm.
  7. Thus (from 5, 6): We can only avoid dangerous climate change (with a sufficiently high probability) if, in the course of this century, we succeed in stabilizing the atmospheric CO2 concentration at less than 350 ppm.

92A38 Worst-Case Climate Sensitivity

  1. Climate sensitivity may well exceed 4 K, without us being able to reliably estimate the probability thereof.
  2. If climate sensitivity may well exceed 4 K, without us being able to reliably estimate the probability thereof, global warming of significantly more than 2° C can only be avoided (with a sufficiently high probability) if the radiation budget of the Earth is being balanced without delay.
  3. Global warming of significantly more than 2° C would represent a dangerous climate change.
  4. Thus (from 1-3): We can only avoid dangerous climate change (with a sufficiently high probability) if we succeed in balancing the radiation budget of the Earth without delay.
  5. To balance the radiation budget of the Earth without delay, the CO2 concentration needs to be stabilized at less than 350 ppm in the course of this century.
  6. ThuS (from 4, 5): We can only avoid dangerous climate change (with a sufficiently high probability) if, in the course of this century, we succeed in stabilizing the atmospheric CO2 concentration at less than 350 ppm.

93A39 Efficiency Argument

94The direct and indirect costs of CE deployment are clearly below those of mitigation and adaptation. (Ott 2010a, b, d; Gardiner 2010:287; Elliott 2010:20; Wood in Goodell 2010:129)

95A40 Do-it-Alone Argument

96If necessary, CE technologies can be deployed by a small group of determined nations to the benefit of the entire world. (Ott 2010a, b, d)

97A41 Easiness Argument

98CE allows avoiding dangerous climate change without changing life styles, habits, and the current mode of our economy. (Ott 2010a, b, d)

99A42 Only Partial Offset

100The CE method T often neutralises only a fraction of all anthropogenic climate impacts; e. g. not ocean acidification. In principle, its benefits are obviously smaller than those of mitigation. (Gardiner 2010:288; Robock 2008a, b; ETC 2009:19)

101A43 Indirect Costs Underestimated

102The CE method T is anything but cheap, if one considers all indirect costs that arise due to unintended side-effects (Gardiner 2010:288)

103A44 Harming Others

104We do not compensate for harming others by merely providing them with technologies which might be used to moderate the harm we have caused. (Gardiner 2010:293)

105A45 Termination Problem

106CE measures do not possess viable exit options. If deployment is terminated abruptly, rapid and catastrophic climate change ensues. (Ott 2010a, b, d; Robock 2008a, b)

107A46 No Long-term Control

108Our social systems and institutions are possibly not capable of controlling risk technologies on long time scales and of ensuring that they are handled with proper technical care. (Corner & Pidgeon 2010:31)

109A47 No Irreversible Interventions

110CE represents an irreversible intervention.

111A48 Retaining Options

112Irreversible interventions narrow the options of future generations in an unacceptable way. (Jamieson 1996:330 et seq.)

113A49 Unseen Side-effects

114As long as the side-effects of CE technologies cannot be reliably predicted, their deployment is morally wrong. (Jamieson 1996:326 et seq.; ETC 2009:34)

  1. It is not true that: Further R&D into the CE technology T may (a) ensure its effectiveness and (b) exclude catastrophic side-effects of its deployment.
  2. If further R&D into the CE technology T cannot exclude catastrophic side-effects of its deployment for sure, then side-effects of deployment cannot be predicted reliably at any future point in time.
  3. As long as the side-effects of a risk technology cannot be reliably predicted, its deployment is morally wrong.
  4. The CE technology T is a risk technology.
  5. Thus (from 1-4): The future deployment of the CE technology T is in any case (morally) wrong.

115A50 Mitigation, Too

116Mitigation, too, is at least to some extent an irreversible intervention with unseen side-effects. (Corner & Pidgeon 2010:28)

117A51 Never Perfect Foresight

118We do never completely foresee the consequences of our actions. (Goodell 2010:135)

119A52 Irreducible Uncertainties

120There are major irreducible uncertainties regarding the effectiveness and side-effects of CE deployment. (Keith 2000:277; Robock 2008a; Bunzl 2009)

  1. There are major irreducible uncertainties regarding the effectiveness and side-effects of CE deployment.
  2. Irreducible uncertainties cannot be reduced through further R&D.
  3. If uncertainties regarding the effectiveness and side-effects cannot be reduced, neither can effectiveness be guaranteed nor can catastrophic side-effects be excluded.
  4. Thus (from 1-3): It is not true that: Further R&D into the CE technology T may (a) ensure its effectiveness and (b) exclude catastrophic side-effects of its deployment.

121A53 Predictive Progress Possible

122Scientific research might advance our understanding so that we will be in a position, when actually deploying CE, to robustly rule out the worst case that CE aggravates climate impacts.

  1. Further R&D into the CE technology T may (a) ensure its effectiveness and (b) exclude catastrophic side-effects of its deployment.
  2. If CE effectiveness was ensured and catastrophic side-effects of its deployment could be excluded, the deployment of CE technologies could not further aggravate the worst possible anthropogenic climate impacts.
  3. Thus (from 1, 2): It is possible that the future deployment of the CE technology T cannot further aggravate the worst possible anthropogenic climate impacts.
  4. Thus (from 3): It is NOT certain that the future deployment of CE technologies might aggravate the worst possible anthropogenic climate impacts instead of mitigating them.

123A54 It Might Get Worse

124In the worst case (which is the decisive one), CE aggravates catastrophic climate impacts.

  1. It is certain that the future deployment of CE technologies might even worsen the most catastrophic anthropogenic climate impacts instead of alleviating them.
  2. There are no relevant probability forecasts available regarding the impacts of a future deployment of CE technologies.
  3. If relevant probability forecasts are unavailable and if the worst possible consequences of a decision are actually catastrophic, one should choose the option for action with the comparatively best worst possible consequences. (version of the precautionary principle)
  4. Thus (from 1-3): The CE technology T should not be deployed in the future.
  5. Thus (from 4): A future deployment of the CE technology T is in any case (morally) wrong.

125A55 Human Error

126Complex technical interventions which are sustained on longer time scales are susceptible to human error and are hence unpredictable. (Robock 2008a; ETC 2009:34)

127A56 Complexity of Earth System

128As a consequence of the earth system's complexity, we will never be in a position to grasp, let alone quantify, all side-effects of largescale interventions. (Grunwald 2010; ETC 2009:34)

129A57 Large-scale Field Tests

130Only large-scale field tests, which effectively amount to full-fledged deployment, can robustly demonstrate the effectiveness and reliability of CE methods. Hence, we will know whether CE works only once we have deployed it. (Robock 2010)

131A58 Socio-political Uncertainties

132The effectiveness and reliability of CE presuppose a stable institutional framework over several decades. Such boundary conditions are unpredictable.

133A59 Short Deployment Conceivable

134In case mitigation efforts are carried out and highly effective CDR methods are available, SRM might be deployed for no longer than a decade. (Wigley in Goodell 2010:133)

135A60 Distributional Effects

136The uneven distributions of regional climate offsets (benefit), costs, and negative side-effects that go along with a CE deployment are deeply unjust. (Keith 2000:276; Robock 2008a; ETC 2009:34)

137A61 Capabilities (Sen/Nussbaum)

138CE deployment will bring about that less people possess elementary capabilities to lead a successful, good, flourishing human life. (Sen/Nussbaum 1993)

139A62 Difference Principle (Rawls)

140CE deployment will even aggravate the situation of those who are globally already worst off. (Rawls 1975)

141A63 Egalitarianism

142CE deployment widens the existing global socio-economic inequalities instead of reducing them.

143A64 Human Rights (Pogge)

144CE deployment alters the global institutional and economic conditions such that human rights will be realised to a lesser degree. (Pogge 2002)

145A65 Overcoming Global Opposition

146Getting global legitimisation (in terms of factual consent and acceptance) for CE deployment is no less difficult than winning broad support for mitigation; if the former could be achieved, global mitigation efforts would not be blocked anymore and the prime reason for CE would fade away. (Gardiner 2010:294)

147A66 Risk of High Climate Sensitivity

148Even with ambitious mitigation policies, we might fail to achieve the two-degree target such that CE deployment is the lesser of two evils. (Keith 2010)

149A67 Impediment to Mitigation

150The deployment of CE makes it highly unlikely that far-reaching mitigation policies are implemented and sustained.

151A68 Amortization Effect

152Significant investments, required by capital-intensive CE technologies upfront, will amortize only in case the technology is deployed for a sufficiently long period of time. This requires not reducing CO2 emissions too much.

153A69 Dual Use

154The CE technology T may potentially serve as (the basis for) weapons of mass destruction. (Keith 2000:275; Corner & Pidgeon 2010:30: Goodell 2010:210-2; Robock 2008a; ETC 2009:34)

155A70 Climate Control Conflicts

156CE puts future generations in a position to control the climate. This ability generates new conflicts and might even bring about climate wars. (Hulme 2010:351; Robock 2008a)

157A71 No Rethink

158The deployment of CE prevents and postpones the urgently needed rethinking in our societies and the inevitable reforms of our economies. (Corner & Pidgeon 2010:32)

159A72 Exploitation

160CE is just a cover for our ongoing exploitation of other people, generations, and species. (Gardiner 2010:304)

161A73 Technical Fix

162CE is a “technical fix”, tinkering with symptoms instead of resolving the causes. As such, it is fundamentally flawed. (Keith 2000; Gardiner 2010:303; ETC 2009:5)

163A74 Ruling Nature

164CE methods are but another means for ruling nature and point into a fundamentally wrong direction. (Gardiner 2010:288)

165A75 Hubris Argument

166CE belongs to a tradition of large-scale interventions which have ignored the boundaries of technical manipulation. It testifies to arrogance and a form of self-deceit that will heavily backfire. (Ott 2010a, b, c, d; Gardiner 2010:303; Jamieson 1996:332)

167A76 Loss of Intangible

168The deployment of CE triggers a loss of wilderness, originality, and intangibility on unprecedented scales. (Ott 2010a, b, d; Keith 2000:277 et seq.; Robock 2008a)

169A77 Elementary Failure

170CE testifies that mankind has failed to meet an elementary challenge: To live and to survive on this planet as we have found it. (Gardiner 2010:304; Jamieson 1996:332)

171A78 Conception of Ourselves

172CE risks undermining our conception of ourselves as moral beings: What does the decision to implement CE or research into it tell about us? What are the humans like that make such decisions? Which are the virtues that may guide their actions? (Gardiner 2010:303)

173A79 Contempt for the Given

174By deploying the CE technology T, we would not perceive and respect nature as what is given to humans; rather, nature would become something we create intentionally by way of technical reproduction. (According to Zimmerli et al. 1997, III. 1)

175A80 Betrayal of the Devine Creation

176By deploying the CE technology T, man subjects the Earth without restraint to his will and betrays its prior God-given purpose. (According to Pope John Paul II, Centesimus annus, IV, 37; WCC 1998)

177A81 Avoiding Hasty CE Deployment

  1. Hasty deployment of the CE technology T should be avoided.
  2. Immediate R&D under the aspect R [probably] brings about that hasty deployment of the CE technology T is avoided.
  3. There are no alternative measures which bring about that hasty deployment of the CE technology T is avoided while at the same time being more appropriate than immediate R&D into CE under the aspect R.
  4. The side-effects of R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R are negligible as compared to [probably] avoiding its hasty deployment.
  5. R&D into a technology ought to be carried out immediately if the following conditions are met: 1. Hasty deployment of the technology should be avoided; 2. Immediate R&D [probably] brings about that hasty deployment of the CE technology T is avoided; 3. There are no alternative measures which bring about that hasty deployment of the technology is avoided while at the same time being more appropriate than immediate R&D; 4. The side-effects of R&D are negligible as compared to [probably] avoiding hasty deployment of the technology.
  6. Thus (from 1-5): R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R ought to be carried out.

178A82 Specialisation

1791) An action A ought to be carried out if the following conditions are met: 1. The objective O ought to be realised; 2. A [probably] brings about realisation of O; 3. There is no alternative action A' that would bring about realisation of O while at the same time being more appropriate than A; 4. The side-effects of A are negligible as compared to O [probably] being realised.

1802) Thus (from 1): R&D into a technology ought to be carried out immediately if the following conditions are met: 1. Hasty deployment of the technology should be avoided; 2. Immediate R&D [probably] brings about that hasty deployment of the CE technology T is avoided; 3. There are no alternative measures which bring about that hasty deployment of the technology is avoided while at the same time being more appropriate than immediate R&D; 4. The side-effects of R&D are negligible as compared to [probably] avoiding hasty deployment of the technology.

181A83 Fostering Mitigation

182By highlighting limits of CE, R&D will underline the importance of mitigation and avoid that CE is still implicitly relied on. (Keith 2010; Lovelock in Goodell 2010:107)

  1. Mitigation should be fostered.
  2. Immediate R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R [probably] brings about fostering of mitigation.
  3. There are no alternative measures which bring about fostering of mitigation while at the same time being more appropriate than immediate R&D into CE under the aspect R.
  4. The side-effects of R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R are negligible as compared to [probably] fostering mitigation.
  5. R&D into a technology ought to be carried out immediately if the following conditions are met: 1. Mitigation should be fostered; 2. Immediate R&D [probably] brings about fostering of mitigation; 3. There are no alternative measures which bring about fostering of mitigation while at the same time being more appropriate than immediate R&D; 4. The side-effects of R&D are negligible as compared to [probably] fostering mitigation.
  6. Thus (from 1-5): R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R ought to be carried out.

183A84 Specialisation

  1. An action A ought to be carried out if the following conditions are met: 1. The objective O ought to be realised; 2. A [probably] brings about realisation of O; 3. There is no alternative action A' that would bring about realisation of O while at the same time being more appropriate than A; 4. The side-effects of A are negligible as compared to O [probably] being realised.
  2. Thus (from 1): R&D into a technology ought to be carried out immediately if the following conditions are met: 1. Mitigation should be fostered; 2. Immediate R&D [probably] brings about fostering of mitigation; 3. There are no alternative measures which bring about fostering of mitigation while at the same time being more appropriate than immediate R&D; 4. The sideeffects of R&D are negligible as compared to [probably] fostering mitigation.

184A85 Planning Long-term R&D Strategy

  1. The long-term strategy for R&D into the CE technology T should be prepared.
  2. Immediate R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R [probably] brings about preparation of the long-term strategy for R&D into the CE technology T.
  3. There are no alternatives to immediate R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R which bring about preparation of the long-term strategy for research into the CE technology T while at the same time being more appropriate than immediate R&D.
  4. The side-effects of R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R are negligible as compared to [probably] preparing the long-term strategy for R&D into the CE technology T.
  5. R&D into a technology under the aspect R ought to be carried out immediately if the following conditions are met: 1. The decision on the long-term R&D strategy should be prepared; 2. Immediate R&D [probably] brings about preparation of the decision on the long-term R&D strategy; 3. There are no alternative measures which bring about preparation of the decision on the long-term R&D strategy while at the same time being more appropriate than immediate R&D; 4. The side-effects of R&D are negligible as compared to [probably] preparing the decision on the long-term R&D strategy.
  6. Thus (from 1-5): R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R ought to be carried out.

185A86 Specialisation

  1. An action A ought to be carried out if the following conditions are met: 1. The objective O ought to be realised; 2. A [probably] brings about realisation of O; 3. There is no alternative action A' that would bring about realisation of O while at the same time being more appropriate than A; 4. The side-effects of A are negligible as compared to O [probably] being realised.
  2. Thus (from 1): R&D into a technology under the aspect R ought to be carried out immediately if the following conditions are met: 1. The long-term R&D strategy should be prepared; 2. Immediate R&D [probably] brings about preparation of the decision on the long-term R&D strategy; 3. There are no alternative measures which bring about preparation of the decision on the long-term R&D strategy while at the same time being more appropriate than immediate R&D; 4. The side-effects of R&D are negligible as compared to [probably] preparing the decision on the long-term R&D strategy.

186A87 Preparing Informed Decision

  1. At a future point in time, we should be able to make best-informed decisions on the deployment of the CE technology T.
  2. Immediate R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R [probably] brings about the ability to make best-informed decisions on the deployment of the CE technology T.
  3. There are no alternatives to immediate R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R which bring about the ability to make best-informed decisions on the deployment of the CE technology while at the same time being more appropriate than immediate R&D.
  4. The side-effects of R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R are negligible as compared to [probably] being able to make best-informed decisions on the deployment of the CE technology T.
  5. R&D into a technology under the aspect R ought to be carried out immediately if the following conditions are met: 1. We should be able to make best-informed decisions on the deployment of a technology; 2. Immediate R&D [probably] brings about the ability to make best-informed decisions on the deployment of the CE technology T; 3. There are no alternative measures which bring about the ability to make best-informed decisions on the deployment of the CE technology T while at the same time being more appropriate than immediate R&D; 4. The side-effects of R&D are negligible as compared to [probably] being able to make best-informed decisions on the deployment of the CE technology T.
  6. Thus (from 1-5): R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R ought to be carried out.

187A88 Specialisation

  1. An action A ought to be carried out if the following conditions are met: 1. The objective O ought to be realised; 2. A [probably] brings about realisation of O; 3. There is no alternative action A' that would bring about realisation of O while at the same time being more appropriate than A; 4. The side-effects of A are negligible as compared to O [probably] being realised.
  2. Thus (from 1): R&D into a technology under the aspect R ought to be carried out immediately if the following conditions are met: 1. We should be able to make best-informed decisions on the deployment of a technology; 2. Immediate R&D [probably] brings about the ability to make best-informed decisions on the deployment of the CE technology T; 3. There are no alternative measures which bring about the ability to make best-informed decisions on the deployment of the CE technology T while at the same time being more appropriate than immediate R&D; 4. The side-effects of R&D are negligible as compared to [probably] being able to make best-informed decisions on the deployment of the CE technology T.

188A89 R&D First

189R&D should not be constrained; once technologies have been developed, a decision can be taken as to their deployment. (Gardiner 2010:288 et seq.)

190A90 R&D No Goal in Itself

191R&D is no intrinsic goal and not for free, either: Research projects compete for limited funds, requiring a choice as to which projects to pursue. (Gardiner 2010:288 et seq.; Jamieson 1996:333 et seq.)

192A91 R&D Related to Applications

193R&D cannot be separated neatly from its potential results' applications because of psychological as well as socio-economic mechanisms. Frequently, automatic applications cannot be avoided. (Gardiner 2010:288 et seq.)

194A92 Technology Neutral

195The CE technology T is, in itself, neutral and may be applied for good or bad purposes. Its mere development cannot reasonably be prohibited. (Goodell 2010)

196A93 Postpone R&D

197Preparing a technical intervention which is to be carried out in 50 years is a waste of resources: The technological means upon which the intervention will ultimately rely are not available today at all. (Gardiner 2010:288 et seq.)

198A94 Moratorium

199Hasty and premature deployment of CE technologies might be avoided (alternatively) by an international moratorium.

200A95 Clandestine Research

201A moratorium would merely push research activities "underground". (Goodell 2010:200)

202A96 Risk Transfer Argument

203Planning for deployment and carrying out R&D today means transferring risks to future generations. (Ott 2010a, b, d; Gardiner 2010:293; Jamieson 1996:331)

204A97 No Informed Consent

205R&D into CE requires a broad and well-informed consent of those potentially affected, which is not given. (Jamieson 1996:329 et seq.; Ott 2010a, b, d; Gardiner 2010:293 et seq.; Elliott 2010:19)

206A98 True Motives

207R&D into CE is but a rationalization for "passing the buck" on to future generations and for not addressing the CO2 problem in earnest. (cf. Gardiner 2010:295)

208A99 Dilemma Generation

209R&D into CE is likely to lead to future dilemmata. (Ott 2010c)

  1. R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R might lead to a future situation, where (a) atmospheric CO2 concentrations are very high, (b) the CE technology T is the only measure deployed to compensate such high CO2 concentrations, and (c) the deployment of the CE technology T entails unforeseen consequences which imply that continued deployment of the CE technology T would cause global evils.
  2. In a situation, where (a) atmospheric CO2 concentrations are very high, (b) the CE technology T is the only measure deployed to compensate such high CO2 concentrations, and (c) the deployment of the CE technology T entails unforeseen consequences which imply that continued deployment of the CE technology T would cause global evils, (i) decisions need to be made in favour of or against abandonment of the deployment of the respective technology T, (ii) equally good reasons exist for deciding in favour of or against abandonment, and (iii) any alternative action leads to a global misfortune.
  3. Thus (from 1, 2): R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R might lead to a future situation, where (i) decisions need to be made in favour of or against abandonment of the deployment of the respective technology T, (ii) equally good reasons exist for deciding in favour of or against abandonment, and (iii) any alternative action leads to a global misfortune.
  4. A situation S is globally dilemmatic if (i) in S, one has to decide between one of two alternative actions excluding one another, (ii) equally good reasons exist for each action alternative, and (iii) any alternative action leads to a global misfortune.
  5. Thus (from 3, 4): R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R might lead to a globally dilemmatic situation.
  6. An action which might lead to a globally dilemmatic situation is prohibited if there are better alternatives.
  7. There are better alternatives than R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R.
  8. Thus (from 5-7): R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R ought not to be carried out (immediately).

210A100 Against Dilemma Generation

  1. Actions that may curb the rights of (future) persons are prohibited as long as omission of the respective action does not demand too much of the agent involved.
  2. Humans have a right to autonomy and self-determination.
  3. Autonomy and self-determination essentially depend on the possibility of persons to choose between basically good alternative actions.
  4. Thus (from 2-3): Humans have a right to choose between basically good alternative actions.
  5. Thus (from 1,4): Actions that may bring about that (future) persons can only choose between bad actions are prohibited as long as omission of the respective action does not demand too much of the agent involved.
  6. The omission of an action does not demand too much of the agent involved if there are better alternative actions.
  7. A globally dilemmatic situation is a situation where agents can but choose between bad alternative actions.
  8. Thus (from 5-7): An action which might lead to a globally dilemmatic situation is prohibited if there are better alternative actions.

211A101 Discriminating Prohibitions Unjust

  1. R&D into the CE technology T under the aspect R ought not to be carried out (immediately).
  2. Some nations and businesses get away with defying R&D prohibition.
  3. If an action A is prohibited (or morally forbidden) to all stakeholders but some get away with defying the related rules, it seems unjust to uphold the prohibition for the remaining stakeholders.
  4. Any prohibition whatsoever ought not to be unjustly upheld and imposed on any stakeholder.
  5. Thus (from 1-4): The prohibition of R&D into the CE technology T ought not to be upheld towards, e. g., German or European stakeholders.

212A102 Argument from Reversibility

213Changes in behaviour (induced by mitigation policies), are much more reversible than technical interventions. (Jamieson 1996:331)

214A103 Avoiding Dilemmata

215We should avoid upfront to end up in a situation where we are compelled to choose between two evils. (Gardiner 2010:300 et seq.; Elliott 2010:13)

216A104 Polluter-pays Principle

217Problems should be solved by those (generations) who have caused them; therefore, mitigation is preferable to CE. (Jamieson 1996: 331)

218A105 No Respect

219An initial act of pollution would even be morally wrong if perfect neutralisation of negative impacts were possible
ex post, because it is an expression of a lack of respect. (Hale 2009; Hale and Grundy 2009)

220A106 Worst Case

221No matter whether CE technologies are carried out or not: The worst case, given mitigation policies are carried out, is comparatively better than the worst case without mitigation.

Notes

1 Thesis or argument is related to different argument clusters.

Lire

Open access