Christian Barry and Garrett Cullity argue that there is a morally important distinction between offsetting by “sequestering” and offsetting by “forestalling.” They further claim that offsetting by sequestering will often make risk-imposing actions permissible, while offsetting by forestalling typically will not. In this article, I highlight some reasons to be skeptical about their view and suggest an alternative account of the conditions in which offsetting can make a risk-imposing action permissible. In addition, I note a significant implication of my argument for the ethics of greenhouse gas offsetting.

中文翻译：

---

什么时候允许施加和抵消风险？对巴里和卡利蒂的回应


克里斯蒂安·巴里（Christian Barry）和加勒特·库利蒂（Garrett Cullity）认为，通过“隔离”抵消和通过“抢占”抵消之间存在道德上重要的区别。他们进一步声称，通过隔离来抵消通常会使风险行为被允许，而通过预先阻止来抵消通常不会。在这篇文章中，我强调了对他们的观点持怀疑态度的一些理由，并提出了另一种解释，说明抵消可以使强加风险的行动被允许的条件。此外，我注意到我的温室气体抵消伦理学观点的重要含义。