The important thing is that the authors: " *argue that debates over “moral hazard” in many areas of climate policy** are unhelpful and misleading. We also propose an alternative framework for dealing with the tradeoffs that motivate the appeal to “moral hazard,” which we call “risk-response feedback.*”
Le mer. 2 juin 2021 à 10:05, Geoeng Info <infogeo...@gmail.com> a écrit : > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209632100053X > > From moral hazard to risk-response feedback > Joseph Jebari, Olúfẹ́mi O.Táíwò, Talbot M. Andrews, Valentina Aquila, > Brian Beckage, Mariia Belaia, Maggie Clifford, Jay Fuhrman, David P. > Keller, Katharine J. Mach, David R. Morrow, Kaitlin T. Raimi, Daniele > Visioni, Simon Nicholson, Christopher H. Trisos > > Abstract > > The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments (IPCC) Special > Report on 1.5 °C of global warming > <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/global-warming> > is > clear. Nearly all pathways that hold global warming well below 2 °C involve > carbon removal (IPCC, 2015 > <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209632100053X#b0065>). > In addition, solar geoengineering is being considered as a potential tool > to offset warming, especially to limit temperature until negative emissions > technologies are sufficiently matured (MacMartin et al., 2018 > <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209632100053X#b0090>). > Despite this, there has been a reluctance to embrace carbon removal and > solar geoengineering, partly due to the perception that these technologies > represent what is widely termed a “moral hazard”: that geoengineering will > prevent people from developing the will to change their personal > consumption and push for changes in infrastructure (Robock et al., 2010 > <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209632100053X#b0160>), > erode political will for emissions cuts (Keith, 2007 > <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209632100053X#b0075>), > or otherwise stimulate increased carbon emissions > <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/carbon-dioxide-emission> > at > the social-system level of analysis (Bunzl, 2008 > <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209632100053X#b0030>). > These debates over carbon removal and geoengineering echo earlier ones over > climate adaptation. We argue that debates over “moral hazard” in many areas > of climate policy > <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/climate-change-policy> > are > unhelpful and misleading. We also propose an alternative framework for > dealing with the tradeoffs > <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/tradeoff> > that > motivate the appeal to “moral hazard,” which we call “risk-response > feedback.” > > -- > 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/CAKSzgpbpp_0E_%3DjWbPf4axjVmWEHCP7o2h13RxnUn83W1SaJMg%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpbpp_0E_%3DjWbPf4axjVmWEHCP7o2h13RxnUn83W1SaJMg%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/CAHodn9_i%2BeqkXqOQ9aHzKjeFJPMn%2BkEkTWRn-DAA%3D9hJ-kwSXw%40mail.gmail.com.
