ArticlePDF Available
Ethics of mitigation, adaptation and geoengineering
Bert Gordijn
Henk ten Have
Published online: 5 January 2012
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
There are currently three ways of attempting to tackle
climate change. The two conventional approaches are
mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation is here understood as
involving efforts to cut emissions of global greenhouse
gases. In contrast, adaptation entails measures to minimize
the harmful effects of climate change. Next to these two
traditional approaches, a new method of dealing with cli-
mate change has now entered the limelight, albeit still in an
embryonic stage of technological development: geoengi-
neering. The signatories of the Kyoto Protocol—adopted in
1997 and entered into force in 2005—have agreed to sig-
nificantly reduce anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse
gases. As yet, however, few countries have completely met
their mitigation targets. As a result, there is growing con-
cern that current mitigation efforts might not be adequate
in order to prevent perilous climate change levels.
Unquestionably, actions aimed at reducing the vulnerabil-
ity to dangerous climate change effects, are going to be
indispensable in order to lessen the most detrimental
impacts. However, these adaptation measures are likely to
be very expensive. Against this backdrop, geoengineering
has been advanced as a deliberate and possibly cost-
effective scheme of large-scale management of the plane-
tary climate. All three approaches currently on hand trigger
their own distinct set of ethical issues.
It is increasingly becoming apparent that mitigation
attempts might not be really successful anytime soon. So
far, many rich countries seem to be unwilling or are unable
to carry through radical measures to hold back greenhouse
gas emissions. Surely some of them fear mitigation might
negatively affect economic growth and material welfare.
As a result, many people, especially in the poorest coun-
tries in the world, have experienced and will increasingly
encounter adverse climate change effects on health, both in
terms of morbidity and mortality (Patz et al. 2005 and
McMichael et al. 2006). Kicking the can down the road in
relation to mitigation, however, also means that future
generations will have to bear the brunt of climate change.
This triggers intricate questions of intergenerational justice.
Finally, there is increasing concern about biodiversity
disruption and loss, which might be caused by climate
change as well (Dawson 2011). In short, our lack of success
to curb greenhouse gas emissions seems to be compro-
mising the right to life, liberty and security of person (Art.
3, Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948), espe-
cially in poorer countries. Our current behaviour also
seems incongruous with our responsibility of ensuring that
the needs and interests of future generations be fully
safeguarded (Art. 1, Declaration on the Responsibilities of
the Present Generations towards Future Generations 1997).
At last, it might turn out to be hard to reconcile with our
obligations with regard to biodiversity conservation (Art. 8
& 9, Convention on Biological Diversity 1992).
At first sight the distribution of the burdens and benefits of
anthropogenic climate change seems to be unfair. The
poorest countries, having contributed least to the problem
of global warming, are affected most severely by its
adverse effects. To many this appears to be a significant
B. Gordijn (&) H. ten Have
Dublin, Ireland
Med Health Care and Philos (2012) 15:1–2
DOI 10.1007/s11019-011-9374-4
global injustice. As a result there is a broad agreement that
richer countries, having mostly contributed to global
warming, have an obligation to support poorer nations in
their adaptation measures. The precise extent to which
richer countries can be held historically responsible and
accountable for current climate impacts, however, is not
easy to determine. Against this backdrop, intricate debates
are currently emerging about the fairness of distribution of
costs and benefits of prevention and adaptation measures,
the responsibility for compensation for residual damages,
and procedural questions about fair participation in the
related decision processes (Grasso 2010).
Against the backdrop of our seeming inability to effectively
address the problem of global warming by political means,
think tanks, NGOs and policymakers alike are more and
more seriously debating ‘geoengineering’, the deliberate
large-scale manipulation of the Earth’s climate (see for
example ETC Group 2010; UK House of Commons 2010;
GAO 2011; Umweltbundesamt 2011). ‘Geoengineering’ is a
term for a variety of divergent technologies that are in most
cases still technologically immature. At present, there are
two dominant geoengineering approaches on hand: Carbon
Dioxide Removal and Solar Radiation Management. The
first approach endeavors to reduce the concentration of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, e.g. by enhancing the
biological or chemical sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The second method seeks to reflect solar radiation, for
example, by injecting aerosols into clouds or by introducing
large amounts of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere,
thereby restricting the amount of radiation absorbed by
the Earth’s surface and thus lowering the global mean
Proponents of further development and possible future
deployment of geoengineering claim it might be the only
way to avoid climate catastrophe, if we continue to be
unable to significantly cut down greenhouse gas emissions
through bold policy initiatives. However, even if we were
able to achieve success in mitigation in the short term, we
might already have passed certain tipping points. In this
situation, greenhouse gas emissions alone might not suffice
to reverse the change. Thus we might still need geoengi-
neering interventions to prevent disaster. Finally, geoen-
gineering might provide us with much needed extra time
in order to launch effective mitigation and adaptation
Opponents argue that geoengineering might lead to
conflicts, a fatal arms race or even the destabilization of the
Earth’s climate. In addition, the ‘technological fix’ does not
address the root cause of anthropogenic global warming
and could subvert any further political mitigation efforts
(‘moral hazard’). Whilst possibly providing an effective
approach to reducing adverse effects of global warming,
geoengineering might thus open up a Pandora’s Box of
new undesirable quandaries.
Global warming and the different approaches of dealing
with it—mitigation, adaptation and geoengineering—prompt
intricate ethical questions to do with global and intergenera-
tional justice and health. Europe has demonstrated climate
policy leadership with regard to mitigation and adaptation. It
will now have to develop a stance toward geoengineering as
well, as will every other country in the world. Because of its
conflict potential and dual use character an internationally
coordinated approach seems particularly imperative in
relation to geoengineering. This approach will have to be
informed by solid ethical analysis of the underlying questions.
Against this backdrop, the editors invite more contributions
dealing with issues at the interface of climate change policy,
justice and health. The very first paper of the current issue is an
excellent start of a much needed debate (Lacey 2012).
Dawson, T.P. 2011. Beyond predictions: Biodiversity conservation in
a changing climate. Science 332(53): 52–58.
ETC. Group. 2010. Retooling the planet: Climate chaos in the
geoengineering age. Swedish Society for nature conservation.
GAO. 2011. Climate engineering: Technical status, future directions
and potential responses. Report from the Center for Science,
Technology and Engineering, United States Government
Accountability Office. GAO-11-71.
Grasso, M. 2010. An ethical approach to climate adaptation finance.
Global Environmental Change 20(1): 74–81.
Lacey, J. 2012. Climate change and Norman Daniels’ theory of just
health: An essay on basic needs. Medicine, Health Care and
Philosophy (this issue).
McMichael, A.J., R.E. Woodruff, and S. Hales. 2006. Climate change
and human health: Present and future risks. Lancet 367:
Patz, J.A., D. Campbell-Lendrum, T. Holloway, and J.A. Foley. 2005.
Impact of regional climate change on human health. Nature 436:
UK House of Commons. 2010. Science and Technology Committee.
The Regulation of Geoengineering. HC 221, Fifth Report of
Session 2009-10.
Umweltsbundesamt. 2011. Geo-engineering: Wirksamer Klimaschutz
oder Gro
ßenwahn? [Geoengineering: Effective climate protec-
tion or megalomania? Report by the German Federal Environ-
ment Agency].
US House of Representatives. 2010. Committee on Science and
Technology. Engineering the climate: research needs and
strategies for international coordination. One hundred eleventh
congress, Second session, October 2010.
2 B. Gordijn, H. ten Have
... Study findings revealed the vicious cycle of income inequalities, dilapidated housing structures, lack of educational attainment and inadequate financial capacities of the vulnerable coastal communities. The burdens of climate change fall disproportionately on the poorest communities, who have contributed least to the problem of global warming, are affected most severely by its adverse effects, and raise serious concerns about equity and climate justice (IPCC, 2014a;Shue, 2014;Gordijn and ten Have, 2012). As poor people face a double burden of inequalityfrom uneven development and climate change, there is an increasing need for equitable adaptation from a moral point of view, improving economic productivity, social cohesion, health and peace. ...
Full-text available
Coastal areas are already facing various risks due to increasing climate-related hazards that are likely to amplify with changing climate and make the households living in these areas even more vulnerable in terms of livelihoods and living conditions. This study attempted to evaluate vulnerability mapping of the coastal areas due to climate change using an integrative external and internal framework from three dimensions at the household level: exposure (E) to coastal hazards, sensitivity (S) due to demographic, socio-economic and structural characteristics and adaptive capacity (AC) relating to available assets and adaptive behaviour to cope with climate change impacts. Primary data on relevant indicators for assessing vulnerability were collected from ten historically eroded critical coastal areas along Selangor coastline, Malaysia. Using a pre-tested questionnaire, face-to-face interviews were conducted with 1050 randomly selected households. The collected data were used to estimate a composite vulnerability index (VI) from E, S, and AC indices. The vulnerability was classified according to four categories (low, moderate, high, very high) based on quarterly percentile distribution to evaluate the status. The results showed that about 96% of households had moderate exposure, and 4% had high exposure to climate change. All of the households exhibited moderate sensitivity. Low adaptive capacity was observed in 76% of households, moderate adaptive capacity in 17% and high adaptive capacity in 7%. Composite VI indicated that eight coastal areas (84% of households) are highly vulnerable, and two coastal areas (16%) are moderately vulnerable to climate change. The high vulnerability was attributed to increased exposure to shoreline erosion, high-risk perception, limited income, weak housing structures and lack of financial capital. The variation in exposure, socio-economic characteristics and available capitals resulted in different degrees of vulnerability in Selangor coastal areas indicating the diversified need for proactive adaptation planning at the local level. It is recommended that an appropriate mix of equitable community-based adaptations that adequately address the needs of the most vulnerable, focusing on poverty reduction, financial incentives and livelihood resilience and climate policies based on equity and justice, cultural and societal values are implemented to contribute to rural coastal households' resilience. This study is limited by the selective indicators of the external household vulnerability and subjective range of vulnerability classification.
... The cost of inaction is also disproportionately greater for those who are most affected by climate change; therefore, climate change mitigation is essential for climate and intergenerational justice as well as the prevention of mental health consequences of climate change. 59,60 ...
Background: Human-induced climate change represents a serious threat to human health, including mental health, due to both the traumatising effects of extreme climate events and the psychological effect of worry about climate change. The present scoping review aims to systematically search and synthesise original research related to mental health and climate-related concerns, negative emotions and mental ill-health in young people. Findings will help to understand the current landscape, gaps in the literature, and to provide recommendations for future youth mental health research and practice. Methods: A systematic search and narrative synthesis of the literature published prior to October 2020 examining negative emotions associated with climate change in young people was undertaken. Studies were included if they examined mental ill-health (e.g. symptoms of depression or anxiety) or negative emotions (e.g. distress, worry, concern) associated with the threat of climate change. Findings: Of the 3329 peer-reviewed articles screened, 12 met the inclusion criteria. Together, included studies show that young people are worried about climate change. Studies also explored the coping strategies young people use to manage their distress caused by climate change. Interpretations: The limited literature in this area indicates a key gap in youth mental health research. Available evidence suggests that young people are concerned about climate change, which may increase risk of mental ill-health. Thus, clinicians should assess for and address climate anxiety in young people. Mental health leaders are urged to advocate for urgent climate action to mitigate the effects of climate anxiety in young people.
... In principle, geoengineering might offer an efficient and flexible solution for coping with scientific uncertainty over how much GHG should be reduced by when to keep global temperature changes within certain limits. In practice, geoengineering proposals remain mired in controversy and are not likely to be implemented on a large scale anytime soon (Victor 2008, Virgoe 2009, Swart & Marinova 2010, Vaughan & Lenton 2011, Gordijn & Have 2012). A few studies by political scientists have contributed to the debate on how geoengineering could or should be regulated. ...
Full-text available
Within the past 25 years climate change has evolved from an issue of interest primarily to natural scientists into one of the top priorities on the global policy agenda. Research in political science and related fields offers systematic and empirically well supported explanations for why solving the climate problem has turned out to be more difficult than originally anticipated. Current research focuses on: (a) whether climatic changes are likely to increase the risk of political violence; (b) causes and implications of particular design features of the global climate regime; (c) variation in climate policies across countries and subnational units; and (d) civil society involvement in and public support for global climate policy. The common thread of these diverse research activites is the interest in identifying factors that could or should motivate political efforts at various levels to mitigate the anthropogenic impact on the Earth’s climate, and to adapt to climatic changes that are unavoidable. While...
Human life and other biotic organisms inhabiting Earth are endangered due to the vagaries of climate change, overexploitation and unsustainable use of natural resources like freshwater ecosystems, forests, genetic resources, wildlife and land use, etc. While emphasizing on the vitality of natural ecosystems and the goods and services accruing from them for human and other biotic organisms, focus is also reinforced on the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources to ward off adverse impacts of climate change and sustain the continuity of life cycle on Earth.
Full-text available
Geoengineering as a technological intervention to avert the dangerous climate change has been on the table at least since 2006. The global outreach of the technology exercised in a non-encapsulated system, the concerns with unprecedented levels and scales of impact and the overarching interdisciplinarity of the project make the geoengineering debate ethically quite relevant and complex. This paper explores the ethical desirability of geoengineering from an overall review of the existing literature on the ethics of geoengineering. It identifies the relevant literature on the ethics of geoengineering by employing a standard methodology. Based on various framing of the major ethical arguments and their subsets, the results section presents the opportunities and challenges at stake in geoengineering from an ethical point of view. The discussion section takes a keen interest in identifying the evolving dynamics of the debate, the grey areas of the debate, with underdeveloped arguments being brought to the foreground and in highlighting the arguments that are likely to emerge in the future as key contenders. It observes the semantic diversity and ethical ambiguity, the academic lop-sidedness of the debate, missing contextual setting, need for interdisciplinary approaches, public engagement, and region-specific assessment of ethical issues. Recommendations are made to provide a useful platform for the second generation of geoengineering ethicists to help advance the debate to more decisive domains with the required clarity and caution.
Full-text available
Geoengineering (deliberate climate modification) is a possible way to limit Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) (Shepherd, 2009; National Research Council, 2015). Solar Radiation Management geoengineering (SRM) offers relatively inexpensive, rapid temperature control. However, this low cost leads to a risk of controversial unilateral intervention—the “free-driver” problem (Weitzman, 2015). Consequently, this creates a risk of counter-geoengineering (deliberate warming) (Parker et al., 2018), resulting in governance challenges (Svoboda, 2017) akin to an arms race. Free-driver deployment scenarios previously considered include the rogue state, Greenfinger (Bodansky, 2013), or power blocs (Ricke et al., 2013), implying disagreement and conflict. We propose a novel distributed governance model of consensually-constrained unilateralism: Countries’ authority is limited to each state’s fraction of the maximum realistic intervention (e.g., pre-industrial temperature). We suggest a division of authority based on historical emissions (Rocha et al., 2015)—noting alternatives (e.g., population). To aid understanding, we offer an analogue: An over-heated train carriage, with passenger-controlled windows. We subsequently discuss the likely complexities, notably Coasian side-payments. Finally, we suggest further research: Algebraic, bot and human modeling; and observational studies.
The recent development of the concept ‘geoethics’ is a response by geoscientists to shape deeper engagement with their professional responsibilities and the wider societal relevance of geosciences. This introductory chapter outlines the development of geoethics to date, as a ‘virtue ethics’ focusing primarily on the role of the geoscientist, describes its meaning and function in relation to neighbouring fields and explores how to situate geoethics in relation to a wider range of issues that require ethical consideration. The emerging field of geoethics has already touched on many topics. This chapter reflects on the significance of geoethics as an effective operational toolkit for geoscientists, asking whether this functional purpose may be weakened if the range of matters considered under the term ‘geoethics’ becomes too wide.
This chapter provides an overview of Helen Longino’s approach to feminist science studies beginning with a discussion of her stand on objectivity, pluralism, sociality, values, and feminist scientific virtues. An overview of each of the virtues of empirical adequacy, novelty, heterogeneity, mutuality or reciprocity of interaction, applicability to human needs and diffusion of power or universal empowerment is also provided. This sets the stage for the analysis of solar climate engineering in relation to her feminist virtues.
Although we now face issues that are global in scale, much of our moral thinking (as well as political action) is concerned with local issues, both temporally and geographically. This can be most clearly observed in the response to the environmental problems we face. The effects of environmental degradation and global warming are becoming apparent (United Nations Environment Programme, 2011), and will affect future generations, particularly in terms of interests such as subsistence. The effects are currently most keenly felt in the “developing world,” where many struggle to gain access to sufficient food and to clean water (United Nations Development Programme, 2011). Future generations will have to cope with the greater degrees of global warming, further environmental degradation, and presumably fewer resources than we now have (in order to cater for a larger population). These harms are caused by the actions of current generations, but will be felt by future generations through no fault of their own. Despite widespread awareness of these harms, it has been difficult to make the changes necessary to mitigate or prevent them. Expanding the moral circle to take into account all the people of the globe as well as future generations is proving to be a difficult task. The response to the environmental crisis illustrates current problems in addressing new dilemmas that are global in scope and that will affect the lives of future generations.
Full-text available
Climate change is predicted to become a major threat to biodiversity in the 21st century, but accurate predictions and effective solutions have proved difficult to formulate. Alarming predictions have come from a rather narrow methodological base, but a new, integrated science of climate-change biodiversity assessment is emerging, based on multiple sources and approaches. Drawing on evidence from paleoecological observations, recent phenological and microevolutionary responses, experiments, and computational models, we review the insights that different approaches bring to anticipating and managing the biodiversity consequences of climate change, including the extent of species’ natural resilience. We introduce a framework that uses information from different sources to identify vulnerability and to support the design of conservation responses. Although much of the information reviewed is on species, our framework and conclusions are also applicable to ecosystems, habitats, ecological communities, and genetic diversity, whether terrestrial, marine, or fresh water.
Full-text available
The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures. Uncertainty remains in attributing the expansion or resurgence of diseases to climate change, owing to lack of long-term, high-quality data sets as well as the large influence of socio-economic factors and changes in immunity and drug resistance. Here we review the growing evidence that climate-health relationships pose increasing health risks under future projections of climate change and that the warming trend over recent decades has already contributed to increased morbidity and mortality in many regions of the world. Potentially vulnerable regions include the temperate latitudes, which are projected to warm disproportionately, the regions around the Pacific and Indian oceans that are currently subjected to large rainfall variability due to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation sub-Saharan Africa and sprawling cities where the urban heat island effect could intensify extreme climatic events.
Norman Daniels, in applying Rawls' theory of justice to the issue of human health, ideally presupposes that society exists in a state of moderate scarcity. However, faced with problems like climate change, many societies find that their state of moderate scarcity is increasingly under threat. The first part of this essay aims to determine the consequences for Daniels' theory of just health when we incorporate into Rawls' understanding of justice the idea that the condition of moderate scarcity can fail. Most significantly, I argue for a generation-neutral principle of basic needs that is lexically prior to Rawls' familiar principles of justice. The second part of this paper aims to demonstrate how my reformulated version of Daniels' conception of just health can help to justify action on climate change and guide climate policy within liberal-egalitarian societies.
This article develops a framework of procedural and distributive justice specifically tailored to the international-level funding of adaptation based on the assumptions that the ethical contents of such funding should consist of a fair process which involves all relevant parties, that adaptation funds should be raised according to the responsibility for climate impacts, and that the funds raised should be allocated by putting the most vulnerable first. In particular, after underlining the usefulness and possibilities of an ethical approach to climate adaptation finance, the article, in defining the framework of justice, first explores and justifies principles of procedural and distributive justice, and on their basis advances fairness and equity criteria that serve as benchmarks for assessing the ethical contents of international adaptation funding. Then, in order to test the robustness and investigative potential of the framework of justice developed, the article uses its fairness and equity criteria to evaluate the procedural and distributive justness of some climate adaptation finance architectures.
Despite recent reports from governments that bird flu is under control, it continues to spread through Asia's poultry and claim lives — there are even signs of human-to-human transmission. Declan Butler tracks the disease's inexorable spread.
There is near unanimous scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions generated by human activity will change Earth's climate. The recent (globally averaged) warming by 0.5 degrees C is partly attributable to such anthropogenic emissions. Climate change will affect human health in many ways-mostly adversely. Here, we summarise the epidemiological evidence of how climate variations and trends affect various health outcomes. We assess the little evidence there is that recent global warming has already affected some health outcomes. We review the published estimates of future health effects of climate change over coming decades. Research so far has mostly focused on thermal stress, extreme weather events, and infectious diseases, with some attention to estimates of future regional food yields and hunger prevalence. An emerging broader approach addresses a wider spectrum of health risks due to the social, demographic, and economic disruptions of climate change. Evidence and anticipation of adverse health effects will strengthen the case for pre-emptive policies, and will also guide priorities for planned adaptive strategies.
Science and Technology Committee. The Regulation of Geoengineering
  • Uk
  • Commons House
UK House of Commons. 2010. Science and Technology Committee. The Regulation of Geoengineering. HC 221, Fifth Report of Session 2009-10.
Geo-engineering: Wirksamer Klimaschutz oder Gro¨ßenwahn? [Geoengineering: Effective climate protection or megalomania?
  • Umweltsbundesamt
Umweltsbundesamt. 2011. Geo-engineering: Wirksamer Klimaschutz oder Gro¨ßenwahn? [Geoengineering: Effective climate protection or megalomania? Report by the German Federal Environment Agency].