Poster's note : study discussed by the authors in the Guardian, as previously posted to list. Link http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/17/geoengineering-co2-carbon-dioxide-earth-climate. Readers should note that there's been disagreement in relation to this issue, with the NERC study reportedly finding a type of reverse moral hazard amongst skeptics. The study below also looked at participants in isolation, and doesn't attempt to model group dynamics, in contrast to NERC, which inherently included them. Furthermore, the online nature of the study (ie lacking the gravitas of physically-present "authority figures") may be a contributing factor (see eg Milgram for background).
Paper link: http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2031/20140063 Geoengineering, climate change scepticism and the ‘moral hazard’ argument: an experimental study of UK public perceptions Adam Corner, Nick Pidgeon DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0063 Published 17 November 2014 Abstract Many commentators have expressed concerns that researching and/or developing geoengineering technologies may undermine support for existing climate policies—the so-called moral hazard argument. This argument plays a central role in policy debates about geoengineering. However, there has not yet been a systematic investigation of how members of the public view the moral hazard argument, or whether it impacts on people's beliefs about geoengineering and climate change. In this paper, we describe an online experiment with a representative sample of the UK public, in which participants read one of two arguments (either endorsing or rejecting the idea that geoengineering poses a moral hazard). The argument endorsing the idea of geoengineering as a moral hazard was perceived as more convincing overall. However, people with more sceptical views and those who endorsed ‘self-enhancing’ values were more likely to agree that the prospect of geoengineering would reduce their motivation to make changes in their own behaviour in response to climate change. The findings suggest that geoengineering is likely to pose a moral hazard for some people more than others, and the implications for engaging the public are discussed. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
