Notes
Note that this paper does not pretend to present the one and only viable reconstruction of the AF-argument. Argument analysis inevitably involves interpretation and leaves room for alternative versions. Gardiner, for example, gives a detailed, yet different analysis of the AF-argument (Gardiner 2010).
Discussing climate engineering as a “last resort option”, the Royal Society’s report alludes briefly to the AF-argument, as well (Royal Society 2009, pp. 44f.).
See also Keith et al. (2010) for an argument along these lines.
Compare also Royal Society (2009, p. 39).
While the moral hazard argument is typically construed as a trade-off between R&D and mitigation policies, it holds, more generally, for adaptation policies as well, as an anonymous reviewer has rightly pointed out.
For a similar recommendation, see Royal Society (2009, p. 39).
References
Allison I, Bindoff NL et al. (2009) The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009: Updating the World on Latest Climate Science. Sydney, Australia, University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC)
Betz G (2007) Probabilities in climate policy advice: a critical comment. Clim Chang 85(1–2):1–9
Birnbacher D (1988) Verantwortung für zukünftige Generationen. Stuttgart, Reclam
Crutzen PJ (2006) Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Clim Chang 77(3–4):211–219
Dessai S, Hulme M (2004) Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Climate Policy 4(2):107–128
Elliot R (1982) Faking nature. Inquiry 25(1):81–93
Elliot R (1997) Faking nature: the ethics of environmental restoration. Routledge, London; New York
Etzkowitz H (2001) The second academic revolution and the rise of entrepreneurial science. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 20(2):18–29
Gardiner SM (2004) Ethics and global climate change. Ethics 114(3):555–600
Gardiner SM (2006) A core precautionary principle. J Polit Philos 14(1):33–60
Gardiner SM (2010) Is “Arming the Future” with geoengineering really the lesser evil? Some doubts about the ethics of intentionally manipulating the climate system. In: Stephen SC, Gardiner M, Jamieson D, Shue H (eds) Climate ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 284–312
Harsanyi JC (1975) Can the maximin principle serve as a basis for morality? A critique of John Rawls’ theory. Am Polit Sci Rev 69(2):594–606
Jamieson D (1996) Ethics and intentional climate change. Clim Chang 33(3):323–336
Keith DW (2000) Geoengineering the climate: history and prospect. Annu Rev Energ Environ 25:245–284
Keith DW, Parson E et al (2010) Research on global sun block needed now. Nature 463(7280):426–427
Louis KS, Blumenthal D et al (1989) Entrepreneurs in academe - an exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly 34(1):110–131
Luce RD, Raiffa H (1957) Games and decisions: introduction and critical survey. Wiley, New York
McCracken MC (2006) Geoengineering: worthy a cautious evaluation? Clim Chang 77(3–4):235–243
Nussbaum M, Sen A (1993) The quality of life. Clarendon, Oxford
Rapp F (1989) Introduction: General perspectives on the complexity of philosophy of technology. In: Durbin PT (ed) Philosophy of technology: practical, historical, and other dimensions. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht; Boston, pp ix–xxiv
Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Robock A (2008) 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Bull At Sci 64(2):14–18
Robock A, Bunzl M et al (2010) A test for geoengineering? Science 327(5965):530–531
Schelling TC (1996) The economic diplomacy of geoengineering. Clim Chang 33(3):303–307
Schneider SH (1996) Geoengineering: could or should we do it? Clim Chang 33(3):291–302
Schneider SH (2002) Can we estimate the likelihood of climatic changes at 2100? Clim Chang 52(4):441–451
Shue H (2010) Deadly delays, saving opportunities: creating a more dangerous world? In: Gardiner SM (ed) Climate ethics: essential readings. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 146–162
Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. The Royal Society, London
Sunstein CR (2005) Laws of fear: beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York
Tollefson J (2010) Climate change geoengineering faces ban. Nature 468(7320):13–14
Virgoe J (2009) International governance of a possible geoengineering intervention to combat climate change. Clim Change 95(1-2):103–119
WBGU (2009) Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach. German Advisory Council on Global Change
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Betz, G. The case for climate engineering research: an analysis of the “arm the future” argument. Climatic Change 111, 473–485 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0207-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0207-5