Ethics of mitigation, adaptation and geoengineering

Abstract

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 climate change has now entered the limelight, albeit still in an embryonic stage of technological development: geoengineering. The signatories of the Kyoto Protocol—adopted in 1997 and entered into force in 2005—have agreed to significantly reduce anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. As yet, however, few countries have completely met their mitigation targets. As a result, there is growing concern that current mitigation efforts might not be adequate in order to prevent perilous climate change levels. Unquestionably, actions aimed at reducing the vulnerability 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 costeffective scheme of large-scale management of the planetary climate. All three approaches currently on hand trigger their own distinct set of ethical issues.