Christopher.Preston@umontana

1. “CO2, SLCP’s, and CE: The Frame of Gross Forcing”Christopher J. PrestonDepartment of Philosophy and Program on Ethics and Public Affairs, University of Montana, USA Christopher.Preston@umontana.edu

2. A MORAL FRAMING To reduce – and certainly not to increase – all anthropogenic forcing as part of a more general principle of reducing anthropogenic interference with earth systems

3. SRM and CDR SRM deployment adds to gross forcing…. ……..CDR reduces gross forcing

4. MORAL HAZARD Greenhouse gases, SLCP’s, and intentional climate engineering are all covered by this framing

5. SLCP’S MULTIPLE FRAMES SLCP’s are covered by both the frame of reducing gross forcing…. AND ……by any other pertinent moral imperative related to human and/or ecological health

6. LINKED FORCINGS maritime emissions afforestation coal burning white roofs

7. POSSIBILITY OF TRANSITIONAL STRATEGIES Dirty fuels already in use contribute to - but do not increase - gross anthropogenic forcing

8. ADVANTAGES • Keeps CO2 (and other dominant drivers) at the forefront • Requires attention to all anthropogenic forcing agents • Separates SRM from CDR (conceptually) without appeals to “naturalness”

9. ADVANTAGES • Does not immediately prohibit leaving some albedo modifiers in place • Does not suggest the “Anthropocene” is endlessly permissive • Directed (ultimately) towards an end to climate management

10. CHALLENGES • Dissenters • Complexity • Prioritizing questions

11. PRIORITIZING STRATEGIES • Bang-for-euro/buck • Net forcing considerations • Attention to discounting • Awareness of co-benefits and other moral imperatives