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

为了更详细地描述当前的行政长官争议，我们区分了最近关于行政长官的伦理辩论的不同方面(或阶段)：(A)探索、(B)映射、(C)僵化分析。我们发现在气候工程提案的伦理处理方面存在以下差距：没有对伦理CE争议进行全面和详细的伦理评估，(1)包含对争论的深入分析，(2)与经验和科学发现相联系，(3)充分意识到所提出的各种CE方法之间的差异，以及(4)系统地将道德辩论嵌入更广泛的哲学背景中。我们项目的主要目标是解决这些差距。研究目标是：·组织总体辩论，进一步阐述已有的论点地图，更新调查。·将伦理论点分配给具体的CE方法，特别是SPP重点关注的三项技术(通过喷雾进行太阳辐射管理、增加海洋碱度、植树造林)。·提高对论点模式之间辩证关系相互作用的理解，探索辩证连贯立场的空间。·分析已经初步探索的六个关键论点的选定范围(“ARM--未来”、“技术修复”、“较小的邪恶”、“危险”、“道德腐败”、《宏观反弹/可持续性》)。·对单一论证中预设的伦理概念的伦理背景进行分析。·将实践哲学不同领域(技术评估、气候伦理、风险伦理)的论点与背景联系起来。·评估辩论的动态，研究辩论中是否有某种进展和/或朝着部分共识的趋同。·反映争论的理论和话语伦理方面(例如，基本的话语规则、框架效果或举证责任的转移)。·理解更广泛的社会和政治辩论，确定行政长官伦理话语与公共政治辩论之间的关系。最终，关于行政长官伦理争论的全面和有理有据的图景将作为研究结果呈现出来。

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.