Response to Svoboda and Irvine (Ethical and Technical Challenges in Compensating for Harm Due to Solar Radiation Management Geoengineering)

Abstract

Svoboda and Irvine (S2014) consider possible compensation for harm from solar radiation management (SRM) geoengineering, implying that both SRM and compensation are futile efforts, bound to do more harm than good. However, the shortcomings of SRM and compensation for its potential negative secondary effects which they cite are found among three existing policy domains, which happen to intersect at the proposed compensation for SRM’s harms: socially organized responses to other complex problems (especially the provision of public goods), compensation (especially in complex situations), and climate change. An additional problematic aspect is that, to some degree, they stack the deck against SRM. SRM is indeed complex and challenging but Svoboda and Irvine fail to indicate why its case should be fundamentally different from these others. A more pragmatic approach, which asks what policies and avenues of research would be most likely to offer the greatest benefits may be more productive.

Keywords: climate engineering, geoengineering, climate change, compensation, public goods