After a longer-than-expected stay I am leaving Saskreeta now. During my stay, I've learnt about one aborted SRM programme, a widespread conspiracy theory that's emerged in response to SRM technology. I've been thinking a lot about David Keith's message, his warning that geoengineering shouldn't be written off as a moral hazard and neglected in public debate. It's led me to look a bit further into the ethics of geoengineering and societal problems with where it might lead.
Duncan LcLaren, University of Lancaster, researches the justice implications of geoengineering. Earlier this year LcLaren wrote an essay following a talk at a SRM Science conference.
LcLaren, like Keith, argues that geoengineering discussions must be had. He acknowledges that there are a number of potential ethical and justice-related problems associated with geoengineering.
LcLaren speculates about the potential consequences of geoengineering - from the risk of such a technology being commercialised to militarised. If geoengieering programmes became commercialised, it's highly likely that a geoengineering lobby would soon emerge, who would fight fiercely to ensure the programmes were never taken down, maybe even despite negative side effects. Just look at tobacco and gun lobbies as examples. On the other hand, if weather-controlling technologies were developed could they then be weaponized? This prospect is certainly sinister.
LcLaren speculates about the potential consequences of geoengineering - from the risk of such a technology being commercialised to militarised. If geoengieering programmes became commercialised, it's highly likely that a geoengineering lobby would soon emerge, who would fight fiercely to ensure the programmes were never taken down, maybe even despite negative side effects. Just look at tobacco and gun lobbies as examples. On the other hand, if weather-controlling technologies were developed could they then be weaponized? This prospect is certainly sinister.
Another major concern about geoengineering is that there really is no experimental phase. Sure, theoretical work and simulations can be done in a laboratory setting. But to truly understand the effects of any technology it needs to be tested out in full scale. However, with geoengineering that cannot be done in safely controlled environments: it can only be done on a scale that could affect climate and whole populations. This may not be safe. If the experiment fails, then we face the full effects of climate change; if it goes wrong, we could be faced with something even worse. The stakes are high.
But LcLaren argues that these issues and concerns won't be solved by ignoring it in public forums. Instead, he claims the key is openness and anticipation of possible problems before they arise, so regulatory and political precautions can be put in place.
Especially when one considers the success/failure rate even in some of the most tightly regulated scientific fields. In medicine for example, decades of research are usually done on a molecule before it even reaches a clinical trial. Even if there is years of theoretical evidence, proof of concepts and laboratory work suggesting a drug will be effective and safe, most of the time it isn't.
Why should the same not occur with a technology like geoengineering? Especially when one considers all the known (and unknown?) unknowns in our climate system. How could we possibly claim to know how a global-scale technology will work before it is implemented.
Geoengineering is not the first scientific endeavour to ask society serious questions, and it won't be the last either. On several other scientific issues - GM crops or human genetic modification, for example -serious debate has been already and continues to be held; discussions have been had, conclusions made and, where necessary, official bans have been put in place to prevent the implementation of technology where it is deemed unethical or unwanted.
But LcLaren argues that these issues and concerns won't be solved by ignoring it in public forums. Instead, he claims the key is openness and anticipation of possible problems before they arise, so regulatory and political precautions can be put in place.
 |
| Image from iMeda Connection |
Especially when one considers the success/failure rate even in some of the most tightly regulated scientific fields. In medicine for example, decades of research are usually done on a molecule before it even reaches a clinical trial. Even if there is years of theoretical evidence, proof of concepts and laboratory work suggesting a drug will be effective and safe, most of the time it isn't.
Why should the same not occur with a technology like geoengineering? Especially when one considers all the known (and unknown?) unknowns in our climate system. How could we possibly claim to know how a global-scale technology will work before it is implemented.
Geoengineering is not the first scientific endeavour to ask society serious questions, and it won't be the last either. On several other scientific issues - GM crops or human genetic modification, for example -serious debate has been already and continues to be held; discussions have been had, conclusions made and, where necessary, official bans have been put in place to prevent the implementation of technology where it is deemed unethical or unwanted.
Public engagement is surely necessary for geoengineering too. But as Stilgoe (2014) points out, such engagement must be broad and should extend past the preserve of academia to incorporate marginal and minority communities. Research indicates that people in higher social classes and positions of power may be more susceptible to moral hazards and unethical behaviour than others, so it's crucial to engage people from all sectors of society to avoid such risks. The quality of engagement will be important as well - ensuring that all vested interests are transparent. Inclusivity and transparency in engagement are two points that LcLaren also encourages.
Just as had happened with GM foods and human genetic modification, we must decide upon, and draw red lines which cannot be crossed by geoengineers - whilst geoengineering research itself is still in its nascence. But this can only be done with public engagement, for geoeingeering experiments could affect us all.
No comments:
Post a Comment