Kiel,

Hale, Benjamin (2012): The World that would have been: Moral Hazard Arguments against Geoengineering (preliminar publication)

Hale, Benjamin (2012): The World that would have been: Moral Hazard Arguments against Geoengineering (preliminar publication) - Forthcoming in Reflecting Sunlight: The Ethics of Solar Radiation Management. Ed. Christopher Preston. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

"In this paper, I argue that moral hazard arguments against geoengineering are both ambiguous and vague. While moral hazard arguments ostensibly offer a compelling reason for avoiding geoengineering altogether, or at least proceeding cautiously, whatever moral hazards may accompany geoengineering do not present an overriding moral reason for prohibiting geoengineering. It is my view that geoengineering-related moral hazards are better addressed by directly assessing anticipated hazards and arguments for the likelihood of those hazards. Building on previous work, I proceed first by offering a working definition of the moral hazard. I then cycle through and assess three variant interpretations of the moral hazard as it relates to geoengineering. Finally, I examine a wide suite of moral hazard concerns. I propose that moral hazard arguments are beset with problems of ambiguity and vagueness. As a consequence of this, I suggest that the moral hazard argument against geoengineering is underdetermined."

Link (Direct Download)

About the author

Linked to: climate politics

« Go back

0 Comments

Add a comment

You need to be logged in to add comments.