Why Geoengineering is not Plan B

In Christopher Preston (ed.), Climate Justice and Geoengineering. Rowman and Littlefield (2016)

Authors
Stephen M. Gardiner
University of Washington
Augustin Fragnière
University of Washington
Abstract
Geoengineering – roughly “the intentional manipulation of the planetary systems at a global scale” (Keith 2000) – to combat climate change is often introduced as a “plan B”: an alternative solution in case “plan A”, reducing emissions, fails. This framing is typically deployed as part of an argument that research and development is necessary in case robust conventional mitigation is not forthcoming, or proves insufficient to prevent dangerous climate impacts. Since coming to prominence with the release of the Royal Society report in 2009 (Shepherd et al. 2009, v), the Plan B framing has proved popular with scientists, in policy circles, and in the news media (see Nerlich and Jaspal 2012; Luokkanen, Huttunen, and Hilden 2014). Though sometimes used to refer to geoengineering as a whole, it is associated particularly strongly with stratospheric sulfate injection (SSI) techniques. Consequently, these will be our focus here. We argue that the plan B framing is particularly ill-suited to the integrative assessment of options within climate policy, because it oversimplifies a complex issue in a misleading and deceptive way. For instance, it highlights extreme positions, presents SSI as an alternative independent from mainstream policies, ignores the multiplicity of options available, and neglects threats of morally indecent SSI in a context of ongoing political inertia. We are particularly concerned about the way ‘Plan B’ risks conveying an implicit hyper-optimism about SSI, and so obscures the need for ethical standards.
Keywords solar geoengineering  solar radiation management  environmental justice  climate change
Categories (categorize this paper)
Buy the book Find it on Amazon.com
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 68,975
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Geoengineering the Climate and Ethical Challenges: What We Can Learn From Moral Emotions and Art.Sabine Roeser, Behnam Taebi & Neelke Doorn - 2020 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 23 (5):641-658.
Accepting Collective Responsibility for the Future.Stephen M. Gardiner - 2017 - Journal of Practical Ethics 5 (1):22-52.
The Most Good We Can Do or the Best Person We Can Be?Michel Bourban & Lisa Broussois - 2020 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 23 (2):159-179.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Distributive Justice, Geoengineering and Risks.Pak-Hang Wong - 2014 - The Climate Geoengineering Governance Working Papers.
Consenting to Geoengineering.Pak-Hang Wong - 2016 - Philosophy and Technology 29 (2):173-188.
Geoengineering as Collective Experimentation.Jack Stilgoe - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (3):851-869.
Geoengineering as a Matter of Environmental Instrumentalism.Shane J. Ralston - forthcoming - In W. C. G. Burns & J. Blackstock (eds.), Geoengineering and Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
The Public and Geoengineering Decision-Making: A View From Confucian Political Philosophy.Pak-Hang Wong - 2013 - Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 17 (3):350-367.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-03-10

Total views
0

Recent downloads (6 months)
0

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes