Ethics of Nuclear Winter and Climate Intervention (Geoengineering)
Research and of Making Policy Recommendations
Abstract
There are many ethical issues that come up in geoscience research, and
here I use my own experience to illustrate two of them. Ethics, unlike
science, is based on values and not testable hypotheses. My values
include justice and sustainability for all rather than increasing wealth
for a few. One of the most important ethical issues is choosing what
topics to research. In 1982 when I first heard about nuclear winter, I
started work in that area. Soon thereafter, Presidents Reagan and
Gorbachev ended the nuclear arms race, informed by matching scientific
results from both US and Russian scientists. I continue to work in this
area, because the greatest threat we pose to ourselves remains nuclear
war, and the world still has enough weapons to produce nuclear winter. I
think the second greatest threat is global warming. I do research on
proposed interventions such as creating a cloud in the stratosphere to
mimic large volcanic eruptions, which, if it proves to be technically
feasible, could reduce some of the impacts of global warming. But this
technique, sometimes called solar radiation management (SRM), would come
with many risks. I have been working in this area for the past decade to
try to better understand the potential benefits and risks, so that
society, if it is tempted to consider SRM in the future, will be able to
make an informed decision. I continue to work on the impacts of volcanic
eruptions on climate, so we can better separate natural from
anthropogenic impacts on climate, and so that we can have better
seasonal forecasts after the next large eruption. I have stopped working
on soil moisture, as I do not find it as ethically compelling, and I
only have time for so many topics. Another ethical issue is whether to
communicate policy recommendations. If you are seen to advocate a
particular policy, will it tarnish your reputation as a scientist? I
say, as long as you make your values clear, who better to make policy
recommendations? You are the most knowledgeable on the subject. So I say
that the US needs to sign the 2017 UN Treaty on the Prohibition of
Nuclear Weapons, to save us and the world from nuclear annihilation. I
say that the US needs to get back into the Paris Accords and increase
our pledge to rapidly eliminate our greenhouse gas emissions, to save us
and the world from environmental catastrophe. This is the behavior of an
ethical scientist.