Caution in Defining the Public for Legitimate Geoengineering Governance

Ethics, Policy and Environment 21 (2):181-183 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Although I believe that Gardiner and Fragnière are right to claim that geoengineering governance demands participatory structures, I think more caution is needed. First, the public to be considered because it is affected must be differentiated depending on the geoengineering technique at issue and on the severity of its impact. Second, to avoid undermining democratic legitimacy, ethical conditions of legitimacy must be carefully assessed. Even though future generations and nature are very likely to be affected by geoengineering, their representation is not as unproblematic as it might seem at first sight.

Similar books and articles

Consenting to Geoengineering.Pak-Hang Wong - 2016 - Philosophy and Technology 29 (2):173-188.
The Public and Geoengineering Decision-Making.Pak-Hang Wong - 2013 - Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 17 (3):350-367.
Geoengineering as Collective Experimentation.Jack Stilgoe - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (3):851-869.
Geoengineering Tensions.Adrian Currie - forthcoming - Futures.
Distributive Justice, Geoengineering and Risks.Pak-Hang Wong - 2014 - The Climate Geoengineering Governance Working Papers.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-09-13

Downloads
251 (#80,400)

6 months
90 (#51,958)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Ivo Wallimann-Helmer
Université de Fribourg

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations