Climate cooperation in the shadow of solar geoengineering: an experimental investigation of the moral hazard conjecture

References

• Abatayo, A.L., et al., 2020. Solar geoengineering may lead to excessive cooling and high strategic uncertainty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117 (24), 13393–13398. doi:10.1073/pnas.1916637117
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aldy, J., et al. 2021. Social science research to inform solar engineering. Science, 374 (6569), 815–818. doi:10.1126/science.abj6517
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alm, J., Bloomquist, K.M., and McKee, M., 2015. On the external validity of laboratory tax compliance experiments. Economic Inquiry, 53 (2), 1170–1186. doi:10.1111/ecin.12196
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin, M.M.K. and Converse, B.A., 2021. In search of weakened resolve: does climate-engineering awareness decrease individuals’ commitment to mitigation? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 78, 101690. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101690
   Google Scholar
• Barrett, S., 2007. Why cooperate? The incentive to supply global public goods. Oxford United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barrett, S. and Dannenberg, A., 2012. Climate negotiations under scientific uncertainty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109 (43), 17372–17376. doi:10.1073/pnas.1208417109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biermann, F., 2021. It is dangerous to normalize solar geoengineering research. Nature, 595 (30), doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01724-2
   Google Scholar
• Chaudhuri, A., 2011. Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: a selective survey of the literature. Experimental Economics, 14 (1), 47–83. doi:10.1007/s10683-010-9257-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chavez, A.E., 2016. Using legal principles to guide geoengineering deployment. NYU Environmental Law Journal, 24, 59–110.
   Google Scholar
• Cherry, T.L., et al., 2021. Does solar geoengineering crowd out climate change mitigation efforts? Evidence from a stated preference referendum on a carbon tax. Climatic Change, 165 (6), doi:10.1007/s10584-021-03009-z
   Google Scholar
• Fairbrother, M., 2016. Geoengineering, moral hazard, and trust in climate science: evidence from a survey experiment in Britain. Climatic Change, 139 (3–4), 477–489. doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1818-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falk, A. and Heckman, J.J., 2009. Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science, 326 (5952), 535–538. doi:10.1126/science.1168244
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heyen, D., Wiertz, T., and Irvine, P., 2015. Regional disparities in SRM impacts: the challenge of diverging preferences. Climatic Change, 133 (4), 557–563. doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1526-8
   Google Scholar
• Keith, D.W., 2000. Geoengineering the climate: history and prospect. Annual Review of Energy and Environment, 25 (1), 245–284. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.245
   Google Scholar
• MacMartin, D.G., et al., 26 Nov 2019. Technical characteristics of a solar geoengineering deployment and implications for governance. Climate Policy, 19 10, 1325–1339. 10.1080/14693062.2019.1668347
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLaren, D., 2016. Mitigation deterrence and the “moral hazard” of solar radiation management. Earth’s Future, 4 (12), 596–602. doi:10.1002/2016EF000445
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merk, C., Ponitzsch, G., and Rehdanz, K., 2016. Knowledge about aerosol injection does not reduce individual mitigation efforts. Environmental Research Letters, 11 (5), 1–6. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno-Cruz, J.B., 2015. Mitigation and the geoengineering threat. Resource and Energy Economics, 41 (2), 248–263. doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2015.06.001
   Google Scholar
• Moreno-Cruz, J.B. and Keith, D.W., 2013. Climate policy under uncertainty: a case for solar geoengineering. Climatic Change, 121 (3), 431–444. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0487-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Academies of Sciences, 2021. Engineering, and medicine, “reflecting sunlight: recommendations for solar geoengineering research and research governance”. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, A., 2014. Governing solar geoengineering research as it leaves the laboratory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 372, 20140173. doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0173.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Parson, E.A., 2021. Geoengineering: symmetric precaution. Science, 374 (6569), 795. doi:10.1126/science.abm8462
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reynolds, J., 2015. A critical examination of the climate engineering moral hazard and risk management concern. The Anthropocene Review, 2 (2), 174–191. doi:10.1177/2053019614554304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynolds, J., 2019a. The governance of solar geoengineering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reynolds, J.L. Solar geoengineering to reduce climate change: a review of governance proposals. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 475, 20190255. doi:10.1098/rspa.2019.0255. (2019b).
   Google Scholar
• Snowberg, E. and Leeat, Y., 2021. Testing the waters: behavior across participant pools. American Economic Review, 111 (2), 687–719. doi:10.1257/aer.20181065
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephens, J., et al., 2021a. The risks of solar geoengineering research. Science, 372 (6547), 1161. doi:10.1126/science.abj3679
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephens, J., et al., 2021b. The dangers of mainstreaming solar geoengineering: a critique of the national academies report. Environmental Politics. doi:10.1080/09644016.2021.1989214
   Google Scholar
• United States President’s Science Advisory Committee-Environmental Pollution Panel, “Restoring the quality of our environment: report” (The White House, Washington, DC, 1965).
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, G., 2021. Geoengineering: the gamble. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weitzman, M., 2015. A voting architecture for the governance of free-driver externalities. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 117 (4), 1049–1068. doi:10.1111/sjoe.12120
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar