Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The case for climate engineering research: an analysis of the “arm the future” argument

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 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).

  2. 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.).

  3. See also Keith et al. (2010) for an argument along these lines.

  4. Compare also Royal Society (2009, p. 39).

  5. The emergence of “entrepreneurial science” (cf. Louis, Blumenthal et al. 1989; Etzkowitz 2001) seems to back up this last point.

  6. 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.

  7. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dessai S, Hulme M (2004) Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Climate Policy 4(2):107–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot R (1982) Faking nature. Inquiry 25(1):81–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot R (1997) Faking nature: the ethics of environmental restoration. Routledge, London; New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz H (2001) The second academic revolution and the rise of entrepreneurial science. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 20(2):18–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner SM (2004) Ethics and global climate change. Ethics 114(3):555–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner SM (2006) A core precautionary principle. J Polit Philos 14(1):33–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson D (1996) Ethics and intentional climate change. Clim Chang 33(3):323–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith DW (2000) Geoengineering the climate: history and prospect. Annu Rev Energ Environ 25:245–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith DW, Parson E et al (2010) Research on global sun block needed now. Nature 463(7280):426–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louis KS, Blumenthal D et al (1989) Entrepreneurs in academe - an exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly 34(1):110–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce RD, Raiffa H (1957) Games and decisions: introduction and critical survey. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • McCracken MC (2006) Geoengineering: worthy a cautious evaluation? Clim Chang 77(3–4):235–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum M, Sen A (1993) The quality of life. Clarendon, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Robock A (2008) 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Bull At Sci 64(2):14–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robock A, Bunzl M et al (2010) A test for geoengineering? Science 327(5965):530–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schelling TC (1996) The economic diplomacy of geoengineering. Clim Chang 33(3):303–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider SH (1996) Geoengineering: could or should we do it? Clim Chang 33(3):291–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider SH (2002) Can we estimate the likelihood of climatic changes at 2100? Clim Chang 52(4):441–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. The Royal Society, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein CR (2005) Laws of fear: beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tollefson J (2010) Climate change geoengineering faces ban. Nature 468(7320):13–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virgoe J (2009) International governance of a possible geoengineering intervention to combat climate change. Clim Change 95(1-2):103–119

    Google Scholar 

  • WBGU (2009) Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach. German Advisory Council on Global Change

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. KIT, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Gregor Betz

  2. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Philosophy, Kaiserstr. 12, 76128, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Gregor Betz

Authors
  1. Gregor Betz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregor Betz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0207-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation