Hi folks, Dan Bodansky and I found out that we share some views on moral hazard and slippery slopes, so we wrote them up and they are published today in Issues in Science and Technology: https://issues.org/geoengineering-solar-intervention-climate-moral-hazard/.
The two concepts are influential. Even where critics conceded that the proposed Scopex experiment was physically safe, they called for its cancellation based on warnings that the research would lead inexorably to risky activities (slippery slope), or that it would distract from cutting emissions (moral hazard). Dan and I think that these claims are poorly supported. While a decade ago it was a reasonable hypothesis that research could prove a slippery slope or a moral hazard, the experiences of the past ten years have not borne this out. In fact they have done the opposite and we analyse three examples: ocean iron fertilisation (OIF) experiments, climate policy in the UK in the 2010s, and the findings of empirical research. *OIF* When I started work on climate engineering in 2008, ocean iron fertilisation was one of the big ideas. “Give me half a tanker of iron and I will give you an ice age” etc etc. But over the years, experiments showed that OIF was less effective and more risky than previously thought. As a result, it dropped down the policy agenda. Field research was not a step onto a slippery slope. Learning more about the idea revealed its weaknesses, reducing the potential for it to distract from emissions cuts. *UK climate policy*The UK government was comprehensively informed about SRM in 2009 when the Royal Society published Geoengineering the Climate. Parliament ran hearings on SRM and the UK funded three research projects. If ever there was a time for a rich country to slide away from emissions cuts and towards SRM R&D, it was the UK in the 2010s - a decade when the Conservatives were in charge. But over the last decade the UK made significant cuts to its CO2 emissions and was the first major economy to set a net zero emissions target into law, then strengthen it. The UK still has a long way to go on climate action, of course, but if it is going to switch its focus from mitigation to SRM, it is being very coy about it. *Empirical research* Finally, we note that a range of studies have now found evidence in favour of ‘reverse moral hazard’, where learning about SRM increases people’s concerns about climate change. Individual studies reporting this effect might have been dismissed as outliers, but now multiple studies in a range of different countries - Germany, UK, Sweden, USA, - have all found evidence that when people hear about SRM, it increases their concern about global warming. *Our analysis*On the back of this evidence we argue that more research is the best defence against moral hazard. The cases of OIF and UK climate policy showed that slippery slope arguments are weak, while OIF experiments provided a check against moral hazard. They showed the complications and limitations of the technique and SRM experiments will do the same. It is worth reiterating that we are not saying that moral hazard can be disregarded. It is likely that there will be different moral hazard responses in different groups at different times and we don’t know the extent to which SRM use could distract from cutting emissions. But in analogous situations research has proven an effective counter. If commentators and campaigning groups want to derail safe SRM experiments based on socio-political concerns, they need to present more than vague warnings about slippery slopes and moral hazard. Andy -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/b656fb08-834e-465e-97bc-a9e6ea5ef4afn%40googlegroups.com.
