To clarify, morale hazard is lazy recklessness (I'll put off swapping my SUV for a tesla, because geoengineering may sort it out) moral hazard is manipulative (I'll dangle the carrot of geoengineering, to get approval for keystone). Personal profit is inherent in moral hazard, knowingly harming others.
Sorry if this is wandering off topic. On Sun, 16 Aug 2020, 16:15 Jasmin S. A. Link, <jasmin.l...@uni-hamburg.de> wrote: > Yes. I am not sure, whether moral hazard or even morale hazard, as Andrew > has pointed out, exactly name what I try to describe. Moral hazard or > morale hazard seem to me both have at least a deliberate decision, at least > concious, perhaps even rational or optimizing in some sense, of action > making in common. Regarding emission behavior, people usually do not > deliberately choose to emit CO2 directly or indirectly. Usally, the > emissions are just a side-effect of their consumption, their way of living. > Thus, a side-effect of their routines. For many people it is even difficult > to reflect on how much carbon they emit via which choice of consumption. > Consequently, an individual attempt to reduce carbon emissions is a great > effort and usually a large step out of the comfort zone for a single > person. Calling it moral hazard, if they "just relax" and fall back a bit > in their routines, or enjoy intensifying them, sounds a bit hard. This kind > of behavioral decision-making processes may be far from what you might > expect as rational decision-making. > > In my earlier referred thesis (Link 2018) I coin the term "path-dependent > behavior", which is the result of the influence of existing path-dependent > processes and is rather a following behavior, following > routines/standards/institutions, the masses, neighbors etc. It is an > efficient way of decision-making, resulting from a short-cut in the brain > (applying the least-effort-principle from social psychology). But the > resulting action may be a different one than the result of a utility > function would be. Like following the advice of your computer expert > (Herbert Simon has also described the phenomenon of personal experts) does > not mean that you have optimized the variety of choices yourself. But if > the choice you have made that way is producing more carbon emissions along > the way than a different one would have, that you might have not even > thought about when only relying on your personal expert: Can you be accused > for moral(e) hazard? > > Best regards, > > Jasmin > > > > > > Am 16.08.2020 um 12:59 schrieb Douglas MacMartin: > > Thanks – I agree completely that moral hazard is a serious risk, perhaps > the biggest risk. (But I also think it is important to be more explicit > about one’s assumptions.) > > > > There’ve been a few studies trying to look at moral hazard, with > inconclusive results even on the sign of the effect – very hard to make > predictions about, but, of course, very clear that it is a serious > possibility. > > > > (And re acid rain, that’s not significant in terms of ocean acidification.) > > > > doug > > > > *From:* Jasmin S. A. Link <jasmin.l...@uni-hamburg.de> > <jasmin.l...@uni-hamburg.de> > *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2020 7:32 PM > *To:* Douglas MacMartin <dgm...@cornell.edu> <dgm...@cornell.edu>; > geoengineering@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse > > > > Thank you Doug, > > > If you would plan the potential deployment of SRM (especially on a > large-scale) you would in the same way have to consider the potential side > effects beforehand to assure to decouple a deployment of SRM from these > potential side effects. Otherwise you would risk the accumulation in > acidification of the oceans, self-reinforcing the reduction in > biodiversity, loss in coral reefs, accumulating in social tensions (just to > name a few of the interconnected potential side effects, cp. Figure > 3.1.,p.71 in the transdisciplinary network of potential side effects in: > https://www.iass-potsdam.de/sites/default/files/2018-06/EuTRACE_report_digital_second_edition.pdf > ). < > > Regarding ocean acidification and acid rain: Yes, putting up mirrors would > not directly cause ocean acidification but SAI might cause acid rain > (depending on the aerosol used). And no, it still is related via an > indirect effect in terms of social behavior: If people comprehend SRM in a > way as that there is some sort of technical compensation happening for > their carbon emissions, they are likely to rather not reduce their own > carbon emissions, but instead increase their own carbon emissions. This is > marked in Figure 3.1. as "less necessity for direct emission reduction?" > connected to a "rise of CO2 emissions", which causes multiple feedbacks > such as the necessity to further increase the SAI deployment. I think, > there have been more recent simulation studies at MIT on this kind of > behavior that support the relevance of this potential indirect effect. > > In my argument on the potential accumulation in acidification of the > oceans, I had this indirect effect of the SRM deployment on the rather > increased carbon emission behavior in mind: Officially applying a method to > reduce global warming which might be understood as "fixing the problem with > engineering" might rather reduce than increase individual mitigation > efforts. (Of course, we know that the problem is not really fixed, but try > to explain that to usual consumers who would know at some point that their > government would regularly spend large sums of money on SRM and who might > feel more comfortable to stick and increase their former behavior than to > really change it, due to path dependence). > > Best, > > Jasmin > > > > Am 15.08.2020 um 23:40 schrieb Douglas MacMartin: > > Thanks Jasmin, > > > > Agree that all the side effects of SRM need to be considered, and need to > evaluate options holistically. > > > > That said, SRM does not cause ocean acidification; CO2 causes ocean > acidification. So one should never list ocean acidification as a side > effect. (It is true that SRM doesn’t solve ocean acidification, but it > also doesn’t solve car accidents… and no-one lists that as a reason not to > consider SRM.) Implicit in listing acidification in any discussion of SRM > is an assumption that somehow we’re required to choose between reducing CO2 > or using SRM, in much the same way that we have to choose whether to drive > safely or wear a seat belt, but we’re not allowed to do both. > > > > doug > > > > *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> *On Behalf Of *Jasmin S. A. Link > *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2020 8:32 AM > *To:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse > > > > "The more advanced the process, the more momentum it has, and the harder > it is to stop or reverse." The same can count for social dynamics. > Self-reinforcing processes with the tendency towards a lock-in are > path-dependent processes. That is, why it is not easy to just change carbon > intensive behavior towards low carbon emission behavior. Many social, > economical, and technical processes have the production of carbon emissions > as side effects which accumulate during the intensifying self-reinforcing > processes (cp. Figure 4 p. 63 in > https://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2020/10431/pdf/Dissertation.pdf > ). > > But what about the side effects of SRM that would accumulate over time > while deployment in an intensity of "driving the earth into a glacial > period"? > > It is necessary to decouple self-reinforcing processes from producing > carbon emissions as a side effect. And try to potentially include the > reduction of carbon emissions as side effects of new self-reinforcing > processes that show the dynamic of "the more advanced the process, the more > momentum it has, and the harder it is to stop or reverse". > > If you would plan the potential deployment of SRM (especially on a > large-scale) you would in the same way have to consider the potential side > effects beforehand to assure to decouple a deployment of SRM from these > potential side effects. Otherwise you would risk the accumulation in > acidification of the oceans, self-reinforcing the reduction in > biodiversity, loss in coral reefs, accumulating in social tensions (just to > name a few of the interconnected potential side effects, cp. Figure > 3.1.,p.71 in the transdisciplinary network of potential side effects in: > https://www.iass-potsdam.de/sites/default/files/2018-06/EuTRACE_report_digital_second_edition.pdf > ). > > Furthermore, with SRM you address the global mean temperature. If this > would work at all, this would not imply the globally even reduction of > temperature, regional effects may differ a lot, potentially increasing also > the climate related risks for coastal cities, which you have mentioned as > your main concern to safe. > > Best, > > Jasmin > > > > Am 15.08.2020 um 13:19 schrieb Andrew Lockley: > > The more advanced the process, the more momentum it has, and the harder it > is to stop or reverse. It's unclear whether we could arrest mass loss, > without driving the earth into a glacial period (colloquially, an ice age). > I don't think there has been any serious modelling work done on ice loss > reversal, or even if the models are capable of doing this with any useful > accuracy. > > > > On Sat, 15 Aug 2020, 12:03 Douglas MacMartin, <dgm...@cornell.edu> wrote: > > What is not correct in the media report is this sentence: “This process, > however, would take decades.” Well, I guess arguably that’s true, it’s > just it would take a LOT of decades. Melt rate is currently of order > 1-2mm/yr equivalent SLR, so to get the 6m from melting all of Greenland > would take a few thousand years. Obviously it can speed up a lot, but > “hey, it’s losing mass” does not remotely imply “therefore we only have a > few decades before we lose our coastal cities”. So no, you can’t use this > study to claim that geoengineering is required to keep our coastal cities. > The problem with relying on mitigation+CDR is time-scale, but this study > doesn’t prove that our response time-scale needs to be faster than what CDR > can (at least hypothetically) provide. > > d > > *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> *On > Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley > *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2020 3:40 AM > *To:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > *Subject:* [geo] Background-Greenland collapse > > > > If this study is correct https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-0001-2 > > And is correctly reported here > https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN25A2X3 > > Then it appears to back up a point that I have been making for a long > time: geoengineering is required, if we are to keep our coastal cities. I > do not see economic or political feasibility for large scale CDR to tackle > historic emissions, and thus the task must fall to SRM. > > > > Nobody has managed to rause an objection to this argument to date. I'd be > grateful if those who might disagree were to raise counter arguments now. > > > > If the situation is as I understand it, prevarication has no clear > benefits, and we should thus move quickly to readiness for deployment. > > > > Andrew > > > > > > -- > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07%2BJc0dmp26W2_H08Rsrs1V_sjEs1pkG6xuZZ75OcTa%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07%2BJc0dmp26W2_H08Rsrs1V_sjEs1pkG6xuZZ75OcTa%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04pLr9SO5mJQXfUQUXxwUorOSNT1EgdO2AWLVv9Ba4h%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04pLr9SO5mJQXfUQUXxwUorOSNT1EgdO2AWLVv9Ba4h%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > > > > Dr. Jasmin S. A. Link > > Research Group Climate Change and Security > > Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability > > University of Hamburg > > eMail: jasmin.l...@uni-hamburg.de > > www.clisec-hamburg.de > > www.cen.uni-hamburg.de > > > > The CEN combines expertise from the natural and social sciences > > and unites nine institutes and research centers at Universität Hamburg. > > -- > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/915645b9-6707-1546-4a9b-61cc8d46f032%40uni-hamburg.de > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/915645b9-6707-1546-4a9b-61cc8d46f032%40uni-hamburg.de?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CH2PR04MB69362DA78244A77013989D198F410%40CH2PR04MB6936.namprd04.prod.outlook.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CH2PR04MB69362DA78244A77013989D198F410%40CH2PR04MB6936.namprd04.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > > > > Dr. Jasmin S. A. Link > > Research Group Climate Change and Security > > Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability > > University of Hamburg > > eMail: jasmin.l...@uni-hamburg.de > > www.clisec-hamburg.de > > www.cen.uni-hamburg.de > > > > The CEN combines expertise from the natural and social sciences > > and unites nine institutes and research centers at Universität Hamburg. > > -- > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CH2PR04MB69368468A10ABDA3D77B25938F5E0%40CH2PR04MB6936.namprd04.prod.outlook.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CH2PR04MB69368468A10ABDA3D77B25938F5E0%40CH2PR04MB6936.namprd04.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > > Dr. Jasmin S. A. Link > Research Group Climate Change and Security > Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability > University of Hamburg > eMail: jasmin.l...@uni-hamburg.dewww.clisec-hamburg.dewww.cen.uni-hamburg.de > > The CEN combines expertise from the natural and social sciences > and unites nine institutes and research centers at Universität Hamburg. > > -- > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/196ff2cc-1636-8df8-3a7e-9d4f06dc46d9%40uni-hamburg.de > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/196ff2cc-1636-8df8-3a7e-9d4f06dc46d9%40uni-hamburg.de?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04yYV8GfBhiL5mYi6mKNbxAN_hGEqmpc%3D3k3250EtyaVQ%40mail.gmail.com.
