Pros And Cons Of Geoengineering

geoengineering can be used to mitigate the effects of climate change while also fulfilling our duty to future generations. In order to prove this stance, I will show that when approached through the lens of Rawlsian social contract theory, geoengineering can be seen as a responsible solution to address climate change as well as address the concerns about ethics and morals associated with the risk of appealing to geoengineering.

In order to dive into the problems of geoengineering it is imperative that we first understand what geoengineering is and the two main types that are currently being discussed. As Stephen Gardiner mentions in Climate Ethics: Essential Readings, the term itself has not had a sufficient definition, rather geoengineering

To elaborate further, the nine-point structure of the AFA is as follows, as demonstrated by Gardiner: To address climate change, reducing global emissions is presented as the most effective strategy (1). However, despite our efforts to reduce emissions over the past 15 years, the progress has been insufficient (2), and there is rarely any sign that things will change for the better soon. (3). If this trend persists, we could eventually have to make the tough decision of using geoengineering or allowing catastrophic repercussions to occur (4). While neither choice is preferable (5), geoengineering is seen as the least dangerous alternative (6). Given this, we should consider using geoengineering if a quick judgment is necessary (7). As a result, we must make sure that we are equipped to act decisively when necessary (8). Therefore, we must immediately start conducting solid research studies on geoengineering possibilities (9). Furthermore, in order to understand the underlying question of why geoengineering is problematic or evil, Gardiner sheds light on two other arguments. First, the cost-effective argument basically aims to support geoengineering on the notion that it is the best fiscal decision to combat climate change. Consequently, as noted by Gardiner, a majority of individuals have not been persuaded by the cost-effective argument in relation to using

This is the case because of the way in which Rawls understands justice and fairness. As emphasized by Rawls, there is a need of ensuring that every government effort or policy benefits those in society who are least fortunate (Rawls 13). This implies that any geoengineering strategy must include all potential risks and rewards in a way that ensures an equitable and acceptable distribution of risks and benefits throughout society, with a focus on the least advantaged. Given this concept, it might be argued that this task would be inherently challenging in the case of geoengineering. For example, geoengineering techniques such as ocean fertilization, for instance, might exacerbate already-existing imbalances and harm weaker populations, such as those that live in coastal areas and depend on seafood for nourishment or a means of subsistence. Additionally, depending on the individual, the definition of a fair and reasonable distribution of risks and benefits may be contested. Similarly, another problem of risk management against the backdrop of Rawlsian theory is the issue of distributive justice. Rawls argues that a just society is one that distributes benefits and burdens fairly (Rawls 52). However, geoengineering interventions have the