Geoengineering

I believe that Gardiner has successfully outlined several substantial problems with the Arm the Future Argument, or AFA. One aspect of the AFA that concerns me is that it essentially looks upon mitigation, or reducing global emissions, as being impossible, or so improbable that we ought not to focus on it, and perhaps we even ought to give up on it. Starting research now on geoengineering would detract attention from mitigation and “non-evil” forms of prevention. Both reduction and geoengineering research would require us to act now; if this is the case, then why not choose the wiser action. I do not see how research on geoengineering could be justified if at the same time no steps toward reducing emissions were taken, as this would imply that we do not care about future generations enough to spare them the climate catastrophe, only enough to provide them with a “less evil” way to deal with it. Furthermore, such research provides us with a convenient excuse for not mitigating. If we are already helping a future generation out of the disaster we are creating, then perhaps we would not see the point in changing our ways as well—why would prevention matter more than our lifestyles if we are giving them a remedy anyway? Another problem that I have with the AFA is that it does not address the problem of political inertia. The AFA sees political inertia as something that needs to be accepted rather than confronted; however, any successful measures that might be taken regarding climate change must address this issue, and I see it as a problem to solve rather than to work around. Political inertia ought not to be passively accepted along with a plan for the future that is dubious at best any more than a climate catastrophe ought to be accepted, and to accept one is really to make room for the other. Perhaps we ought to invest more in combating political inertia instead of geoengineering. I also think that the AFA is a bit narrow in vision, as I do not see that it is likely for geoengineering to be the only solution available, let alone the best solution, for a future climate problem. I would also question how successful geoengineering would actually be, what the long-term effects would be, and if it would actually be the lesser of two evils—this questioning could perhaps provide reason to support minimal limited research. If, for instance, it was found that the effects of geoengineering would be far worse for a distant future generation than the climate catastrophe would be for the future generation, then perhaps the research was valuable, of course, only with other mitigation efforts well under way as well. Reducing global emissions is the best option that we have to address climate change, and that ought to be our focus; geoengineering, on the other hand ought to be more of an experimental side project, and have nothing to do with actual considerations or preparations for the future. Geoengineering research seems somewhat irrelevant when compared to the reductive measures we need to be taking at present, and simply because political inertia is in the way does not mean that we must quit—it only means that we ought to be more creative and persistent. Reliance upon geoengineering research ought to be for when our sincere actions are not working well enough or quickly enough and nothing more can be done, not for when we have a multitude of valid “non-evil” options, but we choose not to use any of them. There may seem to be only two options in the AFA, but in today’s reality, this does not hold true.