IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v177y2024i1d10.1007_s10584-023-03671-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Presenting balanced geoengineering information has little effect on mitigation engagement

Author

Listed:
  • Christine Merk

    (Kiel Institute for the World Economy)

  • Gernot Wagner

    (Columbia Business School)

Abstract

“Moral hazard” links geoengineering to mitigation via the fear that either solar geoengineering (solar radiation management, SRM) or carbon dioxide removal (CDR) might crowd out the desire to cut emissions. Fear of this crowding-out effect ranks among the most frequently cited risks of (solar) geoengineering. We here test moral hazard versus its inverse in a large-scale, revealed-preference experiment (n ~ 340,000) on Facebook and find little to no support for either outcome. For the most part, talking about SRM or CDR does not motivate our study population to support a large US environmental non-profit’s mission, nor does it turn them off relative to baseline climate messaging, except when using extreme messengers and framings. Our results indicate the importance of actors and reasoned narratives of (solar) geoengineering to help guide public discourse.

Suggested Citation

  • Christine Merk & Gernot Wagner, 2024. "Presenting balanced geoengineering information has little effect on mitigation engagement," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(1), pages 1-17, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:177:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-023-03671-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-023-03671-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-023-03671-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-023-03671-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gernot Wagner & Martin L. Weitzman, 2016. "Climate Shock: The Economic Consequences of a Hotter Planet," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 2, number 10725.
    2. Todd L. Cherry & Steffen Kallbekken & Stephan Kroll & David M. McEvoy, 2021. "Does solar geoengineering crowd out climate change mitigation efforts? Evidence from a stated preference referendum on a carbon tax," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-8, March.
    3. Merk, Christine & Pönitzsch, Gert & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "Knowledge about aerosol injection does not reduce individual mitigation efforts," Kiel Working Papers 2006, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    4. Andrews, Talbot M. & Delton, Andrew W. & Kline, Reuben, 2022. "Anticipating moral hazard undermines climate mitigation in an experimental geoengineering game," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    5. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch & Katrin Rehdanz, 2019. "Do climate engineering experts display moral-hazard behaviour?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 231-243, February.
    6. Astrid Dannenberg & Sonja Zitzelsberger, 2019. "Climate experts’ views on geoengineering depend on their beliefs about climate change impacts," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(10), pages 769-775, October.
    7. Mildenberger, Matto & Tingley, Dustin, 2019. "Beliefs about Climate Beliefs: The Importance of Second-Order Opinions for Climate Politics," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 1279-1307, October.
    8. Dustin Tingley & Gernot Wagner, 2017. "Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-7, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Toby Bolsen & Risa Palm & Russell E. Luke, 2023. "Public response to solar geoengineering: how media frames about stratospheric aerosol injection affect opinions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(8), pages 1-21, August.
    2. Todd L. Cherry & Stephan Kroll & David M. McEvoy, 2023. "Climate cooperation with risky solar geoengineering," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(10), pages 1-14, October.
    3. Kelly Wanser & Sarah J. Doherty & James W. Hurrell & Alex Wong, 2022. "Near-term climate risks and sunlight reflection modification: a roadmap approach for physical sciences research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 174(3), pages 1-20, October.
    4. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch & Katrin Rehdanz, 2019. "Do climate engineering experts display moral-hazard behaviour?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 231-243, February.
    5. Andrews, Talbot M. & Delton, Andrew W. & Kline, Reuben, 2022. "Anticipating moral hazard undermines climate mitigation in an experimental geoengineering game," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    6. Beckage, Brian & Lacasse, Katherine & Raimi, Kaitlin T. & Visioni, Daniele, 2023. "Integrating Risk Perception with Climate Models to Understand the Potential Deployment of Solar Radiation Modification to Mitigate Climate Change," RFF Working Paper Series 23-22, Resources for the Future.
    7. Jeffrey Dankwa Ampah & Chao Jin & Haifeng Liu & Mingfa Yao & Sandylove Afrane & Humphrey Adun & Jay Fuhrman & David T. Ho & Haewon McJeon, 2024. "Deployment expectations of multi-gigatonne scale carbon removal could have adverse impacts on Asia’s energy-water-land nexus," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-14, December.
    8. Freeman, Mark C. & Wagner, Gernot & Zeckhauser, Richard J., 2015. "Climate Sensitivity Uncertainty: When Is Good News Bad?," Working Paper Series rwp15-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    9. Spies-Butcher, Ben & Bryant, Gareth, 2024. "The history and future of the tax state: Possibilities for a new fiscal politics beyond neoliberalism," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    10. Stefano Giglio & Bryan Kelly & Johannes Stroebel, 2021. "Climate Finance," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 13(1), pages 15-36, November.
    11. Dehler-Holland, Joris & Schumacher, Kira & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "Topic Modeling Uncovers Shifts in Media Framing of the German Renewable Energy Act," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 2(1).
    12. Clarke, Harry, 2015. "Climate policy decisions under uncertainty," Working Papers 249517, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    13. Ghidoni, Riccardo & Calzolari, Giacomo & Casari, Marco, 2017. "Climate change: Behavioral responses from extreme events and delayed damages," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(S1), pages 103-115.
    14. Ahlvik, Lassi & Iho, Antti, 2018. "Optimal geoengineering experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 148-168.
    15. van der Ploeg, Frederick, 2020. "Race to burn the last ton of carbon and the risk of stranded assets," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    16. Aiste Dirzyte, 2023. "Exploring the Nexus between Conspiracy Beliefs and Creativity, Attitudes toward People, and Psychological Wellbeing: Insights from the 10th European Social Survey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-21, November.
    17. Adrien Fabre & Gernot Wagner, 2020. "Availability of risky geoengineering can make an ambitious climate mitigation agreement more likely," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-4, December.
    18. Peter Linquiti & Nathan Cogswell, 2016. "The Carbon Ask: effects of climate policy on the value of fossil fuel resources and the implications for technological innovation," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6(4), pages 662-676, December.
    19. Calzolari, Giacomo & Casari, Marco & Ghidoni, Riccardo, 2018. "Carbon is forever: A climate change experiment on cooperation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 169-184.
    20. Monika Pompeo & Nina Serdarevic, 2021. "Is information enough? The case of Republicans and climate change," Discussion Papers 2021-08, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:177:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-023-03671-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.