Abstract
As climate conditions worsen and mitigation efforts continue to fall short, the likelihood increases that States or other international actors will look to geoengineering technologies for a remedy. The most basic of these methods, such as planting trees or sequestering carbon underground, can take place within sovereign territory. However, there are also many types of geoengineering that could be deployed in the global commons. This means that their impact would clearly be felt beyond one specific State or region, and, with certain approaches, such as stratospheric aerosol injection, likely worldwide. These commons-based geoengineering (CBG) technologies are largely untested and, in almost all cases, speculative. This leaves considerable uncertainty about the results of deployment. It also provides an opportunity for States to make deliberate, prospective choices in policies that maximize the global common good.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
L.J. Wilcox, E.J. Highwood, and N.J. Dunstone, The influence of anthropogenic aerosol on multi-decadal variations of historical global climate, 8(2) Envtl. Research Letters, art. 024033 (2013). Historical evidence from the 1815 eruption of Mt. Tambora indicates that repeated injections of sulfur might ‘knock the climate’ for longer than anticipated. See Clive Oppenheimer, Climatic, environmental, and human consequences of the largest known historic eruption: Tambora volcano (Indonesia) 1815, 27(2) Progress in Physical Geography 230, 256 (2003). For examples of the difficulty modeling the wide range of possible outcomes for certain CBG technologies, see P. J. Irvine, et al., Towards a comprehensive climate impacts assessment of solar geoengineering, 5 Earth’s Future, 93 (2017). For an argument about the potential for geoengineering to have a negative impact on biodiversity, see C.H. Trisos, et al., Potentially dangerous consequences for biodiversity of solar geoengineering implementation and termination, 2 Nature Ecology and Evolution 475–82 (2018).
- 2.
For example, see Alan Robock, et al. A Test for Geoengineering? 327 Sci. 530 (2010); Aaron L. Strong, John J. Cullen, and Sallie W. Chisholm, Ocean Fertilization: Science, Policy, and Commerce 22 (3) Oceangraphy 236–261 (2009).
- 3.
Asilomar: Asilomar statement on Climate intervention Technologies, http://www.climateresponsefund.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=152&itemid=89. Oxford: http://www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/oxford-principles/principles/
- 4.
The two relevant efforts are the Decision Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its Tenth Meeting, October 29, 2010, UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/33 and an Annex adopted by the Contracting Parties to the 1996 Protocol to the 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, October 18, 2013, LC 36/16 Annex I.
- 5.
See the two reports from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration and Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth, both published in 2015. They are available online at https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/other-reports-on-climate-change/climate-intervention-reports/
- 6.
For the full text of the Convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques (ENMOD), see United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1108, p. 151 and depositary notification C.N.263.1978.TREATIES-12 of 27 October 1978 (rectification of the English text); For the full text of Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War, see International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b36b4.html [accessed 12 January 2019]
- 7.
For example, both the International Committee on the Red Cross (ICRC) and the U.S. Department of State (DOS) refer to ENMOD as an agreement about wartime behavior. See ICRC, “1976 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques,” 01/2003 available at https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/1976_enmod.pdf; DOS Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, narrative introduction to the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, available at https://www.state.gov/t/isn/4783.htm. In addition, the documents of the Second ENMOD Conference in 1992 indicate that States differed dramatically in their understandings of how (and whether) the treaty applied outside of wartime. See ENMOD/CONF.II/12, Part III, p35. Available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/unoda-web/documents/library/conf/ENMOD-CONF-11-12.pdf
- 8.
Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations 44 (3rd ed. 2000)
- 9.
Emer de Vattel. The Law of Nations 705-06 (Béla Kapossy and Richard Whatmore eds. 2008).
- 10.
Christopher A. Whytock, Foreign State Immunity and the Right to Court Access 93 Boston U. L. Rev. 2033, 2038 (2013).
- 11.
Mark Douglas. Changing the Rules: Just War Theory in the Twenty-First Century 59(4) Theology Today 529, 538 (2003).
- 12.
Perhaps the best-known explanation of the bureaucratic politics model comes from Graham Allison, Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis 63(3) Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 689 (1969).
- 13.
For a concise overview of Cicero’s place in the just war tradition, see Gavin Stewart, “Cicero,” in Just War Thinkers: From Cicero to the 21st Century 8–20 (Daniel R. Brunstetter and Cian O’Driscoll, eds. 2018).
- 14.
Augustine, City of God (Henry Bettenson trans, 1984) Book XIX, Ch. 13, at 870.
- 15.
Thomas Aquinas addresses the topic of just war specifically in Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q. 40.
- 16.
For example, compare the Christian realism of Jean Bethke Elshtain, Women and War (1987); the moral historicism of James Turner Johnson, Just War Tradition and the Restraint of War: A Moral and Historical Inquiry (1981); and the reductive individualism of Jeff McMahan, Killing in War (2009).
- 17.
National Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response, nos. 85–110 (1983); United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace (1993).
- 18.
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The criteria in The Harvest of Justice are identical to those mentioned in The Challenge of Peace, with one exception. The 1983 statement gives the first three criteria, in order, as just cause, legitimate authority, and comparative justice. The 1993 statement alters the ordering, so that the first three criteria read ‘just cause, comparative justice, and legitimate authority.’ It is doubtful this was an accidental change. The presumption against use of force is one of the more controversial components of this formulation. The earliest Christian proponents of just war did not stipulate a presumption against fighting. A main argument of The Challenge of Peace and the bishops’ statements more broadly is that the advent of nuclear technology must fundamentally change how States understand their moral options. For arguments against the moral worth of this this changed perspective, see James Turner Johnson, The Just War Idea: The State of the Question, 23(1) Social Philosophy and Policy 180 (2006); William V. O’Brien, The Challenge of War: a Christian Realist Perspective in Just War Theory 169–176 (Jean Bethke Elshtain, ed. 1992) 169–176.
- 19.
Thoughtful examples include Eamon Aloyo, Just War Theory and the Last of Last Resort, 29(1) Ethics & International Affairs 187 (2015); and Ian Halliday, When is a Cause Just? 28 Rev. Int’l Studies 557 (2002).
- 20.
For example, Jovana Davidovic argues that the changing nature of warfare decreases the distinction between the morality of States and the morality of persons. See J. Davidovic, Should the Changing Character of War Affect Our Theories of War? 19 Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 603 (2016).
- 21.
Brian Orend, War and International Justice: a Kantian Perspective 164 (2000).
- 22.
For example, in their writings on climate change and the environment more generally, the U.S. Catholic bishops have repeatedly stated that any mitigation efforts must prioritize the needs and well-being of the poor and weak. See U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good (2001).
- 23.
Elizabeth L. Chalecki & Lisa L. Ferrari, A New Security Framework for Geoengineering 12(2) Strategic Studies Q. 82 (2018).
- 24.
Darrell Cole, War and Intention 10(3) J.Military Ethics 174 (2011); Rosemary B. Kellison Impure Agency and the Just War: a Feminist Reading of Right Intention 43(2) J. Religious Ethics 317 (2015).
- 25.
Much has been made of U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie’s remarks to Saddam Hussein that the U.S. had no stake in disputes between Arab States. Yet many States besides the U.S. had a stake in whether Iraq annexed Kuwait, and would have regarded such an action as problematic. See, for example, the response of the Saudi king: Fahd bin Abdel Aziz, Defending the Kingdom 56(2) Vital Speeches of the Day, 675 (1990). For discussion of external influences on Iraq’s strategic decisions, see Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, Gulf War: The Socio-Political Background 16(3) Arab Studies Q. 1–13 (1994).
- 26.
An earlier dam, now generally referred to as the Aswan Low Dam, was erected in 1903 and expanded in 1913 and 1933.
- 27.
For a retrospective assessment of the dam’s impact, see Hesham Abd-El Monsef, Scot E. Smith, and Kamal Darwish, Impacts of the Aswan High Dam After 50 Years 29 Water Resources Mgmt. 1873 (2015).
- 28.
For a concise overview of the factors influencing Kennedy’s initial use of Agent Orange, see Edwin A. Martini, Hearts, Minds, and Herbicides: The Politics of Chemical War in Vietnam, 37(1) Diplomatic History 58–84 (3024).
- 29.
For example, there is growing, though not absolute, consensus among just war scholars that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not morally justified. See Jean Bethke Elshtain, Just War against Terror: the Burden of American Power in a Violent World 62 (2003).
References
Chalecki, E.L., Lisa, L.: Ferrari: A new security framework for geoengineering. Strategic Studies Q. 12(2), 82 (2018)
Christopher, A.: Whytock: Foreign State Immunity and the Right to Court Access. Boston U. L. Rev. 93(2033), 2038 (2013)
Douglas, M.: Changing the rules: Just war theory in the twenty-first century. Theology Today. 59(4), 529 (2003)
Orend, B.: War and International Justice: A Kantian perspective. Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Waterloo (2000)
Robock, A., et al.: A test for geoengineering? Science. 327(530) (2010)
Strong, A.L., Cullen, J.J., Chisholm, S.W.: Ocean fertilization: Science, policy, and commerce. Oceanography. 22(3), 236–261 (2009)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ferrari, L.L., Chalecki, E.L. (2021). A Moral Framework for Commons-Based Geoengineering. In: Burns, W., Dana, D., Nicholson, S.J. (eds) Climate Geoengineering: Science, Law and Governance. AESS Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies and Sciences Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72372-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72372-9_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-72371-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-72372-9
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)