[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_10104.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Presenting Balanced Geoengineering Information Has Little Effect on Mitigation Engagement

Author

Listed:
  • Christine Merk
  • Gernot Wagner
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 U.S. environmental non-profit’s mission, nor does it turn them off relative to baseline climate messaging. Our results indicate the importance of actors and reasoned narratives of (solar) geoengineering to help guide public discourse.

Suggested Citation

  • Christine Merk & Gernot Wagner, 2022. "Presenting Balanced Geoengineering Information Has Little Effect on Mitigation Engagement," CESifo Working Paper Series 10104, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_10104
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp10104.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    geoengineering; moral hazard; mitigation deterrence; crowding out; crowding in;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ces:ceswps:_10104. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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.