Geoengineering is the most contentious response to climate change. It will prevent the warming from climate change. However it poses very high risks to vulnerable groups and future generations, yet there are also great benefits to the first generation who may choose to do this. Moreover those with the power to make the decision to geoengineering are probably those who could benefit the most from its implementation. This desperately between benefits and harms is one amongst a number of ethical concerns which will be explained in the article.
Despite the fact that geoengineering seems to be so morally troubling, we may still wish to do it. The specific type of geoengineering I am considering is known as SRM (Solar Radiation Management) and is constituted by us injecting sulphur into the stratosphere. It is affordable and can quickly reduce the warming of climate change. On the assumption SRM is something that we may want to do it in a climate emergency, I wish to ask the question, ‘could it be morally decent’? In asking this question the ethical concerns related to geoengineering, emerge in two categories: these are the categories of (a) fairness, and (b) justice. These considerations seem to pull against each other. Therefore I will explore whether it is possible to have a relationship between these considerations which could make geoengineering morally acceptable. I will argue that such a relationship is possible. Moreover the possibility of such relationship creates a strong duty for theorists to work it out considering, especially given the likelihood of this action occurring.
