In Gardiner’s piece on geoengenering he raises many questions that must be addressed while considering the application or development of geoengenering. While he uses the example of artificially introducing sulfate into the atmosphere to combat climate change problems, I am not sure his example is as encompassing as he suggests. However, I am more concerned with the logic he applies while considering the “research first argument.” It seems he misconstrues some arguments and utilizes the selective pressure he places on them to strengthen his argument. This condition requires more detailed attention.
When Gardiner criticizes the suggestions of Ralph Cicerone concerning geoengenering, he paraphrases Cicerone’s argument to a level where it is easy to find vague and often insufficient arguments. The first aspect of Cicerones’ position that Gardiner contends is the desire to promote free inquiry in the research of geoengering. Gardiner suggests that Cicerone is considering freedom of inquiry in fantastic terms. Gardiner uses the example of counting every blade of grass on the lawn of someone in Washington just to know, for the value that simple knowledge of how many blades of grass exist in this lawn. While I am not sure the exact position of Cicerone, it is reasonable to assume that his argument for open inquiry is meant to entail at least some degree of triage. Yet Gardiner suggests that knowledge associated with geoengenering research may be irrelevant. Citing Thomas Schelling, Gardiner says that inquiry and research may prove to be irrelevant due to the expectation that technological advancements in the future will be so profound it will negate the relevance of the geoengenering research done in the present. I take this claim by Gardiner presumptuous and ill-conceived. To assume that there will be these technological advancements in the future is naïve, not to mention the assumption that present research will not at least hasten these significant technological advancements is pessimistic and reliant on the future for answers. Therefore, while I agree that some knowledge is trivial in researching geoengenering, you can’t assume that all research is so futile.
Secondly, I find the argument concerning the degree of resource expenditure on geoengenering to be insufficient. While Gardiner admits that geoengenering research is not an “all or nothing game”, he is suggesting that there is no way to adequately or prudently allocate funding or research without it becoming just that. Implicit within his argument is the contention that we are unable to rationally begin research on geoengenering without detrimentally underfunding other more important projects. I agree this is a cause for concern and that there will be difficult choices made, but this does not justify not taking the chance to do this research. Gardiner seems to take a pessimistic view of geoengering research, and ultimately finds that it’s deployment is a question concerning the lesser of two evils, but it seems he places much of his faith on the science of the future. I find this to be ill conceived because if it comes down to future generations inheriting the precedent we set with regards to geoenegering research, they will leave it to the next generation as well. Personally, why not take the chance now? There may be unforeseen goods rather than evils that come from research.