Arguing about Climate Engineering: Towards a Comprehensive Ethical Analysis of an Ongoing Debate

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

In order to characterize the current CE controversy in detail, we distinguish different aspects (or periods) of the recent ethical debate on CE: (a) exploration, (b) mapping, (c) rigid analysis. We identify the following gaps in the ethical treatment of climate engineering proposals: There exists no comprehensive and detailed ethical assessment of the ethical CE controversy which (1) contains in-depth ana-lyses of the arguments, (2) connects to empirical, scientific findings, (3) is fully aware of the differences between various CE methods proposed, and (4) systematically embeds the moral debate in the broader philosophical context. The key objectives of our projects address these gaps. Research objectives are:• Structuring the overall debate, further elaboration of already existing map of arguments, updating surveys.• Assignment of ethical arguments to specific CE methods, especially to the three technologies of the SPP’s focus (solar radiation management by aerosol injection, ocean alkalinity increase, afforestation).• Improved understanding of the interplay of dialectical relationship in between patterns of arguments, exploring the space of dialectically coherent positions.• Analysis of a selected scope of six pivotal arguments that have already been tentatively explored ("arm-the future”, "technical-fix”, "lesser evil”, “hazards”, “moral corruption”, “macro-rebound/ sustainability”).• Analysis of ethical background of ethical concepts being presupposed in single arguments.• Contextualizing arguments in different fields of practical philosophy (technology assessment, climate ethics, ethics of risk).• Assessing the dynamics of the debate, studying whether there is some kind of progress and/or convergence towards a partial consensus in the debate.• Reflecting argumentation-theoretic and discourse-ethical aspects of the controversy (e.g., the underlying rules of discourse, framing effects, or shifts in burdens of proof).• Understanding the broader societal and political debate, determining the relationship between ethical discourse and public political debates on CE.Eventually, a comprehensive and well-founded picture of the ethical CE controversy will be presented as outcome of research.