Hi Will, As Andrew (as he notes) posted this paper to the Geoengineering list earlier and it was discussed a bit on the HPAC List, and is relavant to both Geoengeering and CDR I'm cross-posting across a number of lists.
Quoting from the paper (p. 2); "Across two experiments, we found no evidence people engaged in moral hazard. In both experiments, players were willing to invest the same amount in incremental mitigation regardless of whether the policymaker used geoengineering (and regardless of whether we even mentioned the possibility of geoengineering in the experiment). However, we found people engaged in moral hazard anticipation: Policymakers were unwilling to use geoengineering when it had a low chance of success, despite the fact there was no way geoengineering could backfire. Using simulations, we also show that moral hazard anticipation undermined group success, decreasing the probability groups averted disaster. In sum, we found that people believe others will engage in moral hazard in response to geoengineering, even when they themselves do not." The paper is interesting, but like all such papers it's conclusion is very much dependent on the assumptions used to set up the simulation game. In this case "geoengineering" is described (p. 3) as a 1 or 0 option with a certain probability ( 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, 90%) of complete success, and with no economic or climate/environmental downside if it fails - as described above - no chance that it could "backfire". Thus, though CDR is included as "geoengineering" in the intro to the paper, in practice what it addresses is "free-driver" all or nothing global SAI. The paper is interesting as it raises the possibility that policymaker concern about the possibility of "moral hazard" from implementing SAI could increase the risk of climate disaster even if actual "moral hazard" is not signigicant among citizens. I would add that this conclusion could be even more robust if other forms of incremental, localized, and not 1 or 0, forms of "direct cooling" that are similarly relatively low-cost compared to reducing and removing GHG's (emissions reduction and CDR) were included as possibilities. (Here's a very short and incomplete summary of some of these other methods from a pre-print of a forthcoming paper ( https://www.cpegonline.org/post/our-two-climate-crises-challenge ): "Some of the proposed methods are: Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB), Mirrors for Earth’s Energy Rebalancing, Wind driven sea water pumps, Surface Albedo Modification (formerly Floating Sand), Iron Salt Aerosol, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), Floating Sand, and Cirrus Cloud Thinning (CCN), see Baiman 2021, p. 615-616). Mirrors for Earth’s Energy Rebalancing (MEER) would offer local and regional cooling solutions based on deployment of arrays of mirrors on the earth’s surface[1] <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#_ftn1>, and wind driven sea water pumps could increase Arctic winter ice formation, slowing summer ice melt and methane release (Desch et 2017)." ------------------------------ [1] <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#_ftnref1> https://www.meerreflection.com/home ) As in this case the possibility of significant economic or climate/environmental unintended consequeces could *in reality* (not just as an idealized game theory assumption) be more easily discounted. I would add to the list above the possibility of incremental SAI in early spring in polar regions rather then "one zero, all or nothing global SAI" per this (excellent Andrew) podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/arctic-sai-walker-lee/id1529459393?i=1000548415739 and related paper. Best, Ron Sent from my iPhone On Apr 16, 2022, at 1:23 PM, Dan Miller <[email protected]> wrote: Yes, believing CDR is a moral hazard is a moral hazard that will result in mass death. The idea of CDR being a moral hazard is rooted in the idea that we will not take climate action seriously and we will politely ask fossil fuel companies to please reduce their emissions, if it’s not too much of a bother. Of course, we could put a price on carbon and use clean energy standards to force the phase out of fossil fuels. We could then also implement CDR with no risk of “moral hazard”. See my Global Climate Action Plan for a set of policies that reduce emissions *and* removes CO2 from the atmosphere. Of course, so far, we are not taking climate action seriously… and that *is* a moral hazard! Dan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 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/CarbonDioxideRemoval/C4AF8449-45AB-4272-A41B-1C23BF2F0546%40rodagroup.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/C4AF8449-45AB-4272-A41B-1C23BF2F0546%40rodagroup.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . <Global Climate Action Plan V3.pdf> On Apr 16, 2022, at 9:34 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: So believing in CDR moral hazards is hazardous. Questions? Greg Sent from my iPhone On Apr 15, 2022, at 1:43 PM, Wil Burns <[email protected]> wrote: Talbot M. Andrews, et al., Anticipating moral hazard undermines climate mitigation in an experimental geoengineering game, 196 Ecological Economics, June 2021 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800922000830?dgcid=author *Abstract* Geoengineering <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/geoengineering> is sometimes touted as a partial solution to climate change but will only be successful in conjunction with other mitigation strategies. This creates a potential for a “moral hazard”: If people think geoengineering alone will mitigate climate change, they may become overly optimistic and reduce support for other necessary mitigation efforts. We test this in a series of economic games where players in groups must prevent a simulated climate disaster. One player, the “policymaker,” decides whether to implement geoengineering. The rest are “citizens” who decide how much to contribute to incremental mitigation efforts. We find that citizens contribute to mitigation even when the policymaker uses geoengineering. Despite this, policymakers expect that citizens will engage in moral hazard. As a consequence, policymakers do not use geoengineering even though everyone would be better off if they did so. Anticipating moral hazard undermines mitigation even though moral hazard itself does not. <image001.jpg> *WIL BURNS* Visiting Professor Environmental Policy & Culture Program Northwestern University Email: [email protected] <[email protected]> Mobile: 312.550.3079 1808 Chicago Ave. #110 Evanston, IL 60208 https://epc.northwestern.edu/people/staff-new/wil-burns.html *Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links: * - 60-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/phone-call - 30-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30min - 15-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15min - 60-minute Zoom session: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60min - 30-minute Zoom session: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-zoom-call - 15-minute Zoom session: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15-minute-zoom-call *I acknowledge and honor the Ojibwe, Potawatomi, and Odawa, as well as the Menominee, Miami and Ho-Chunk nations, upon whose traditional homelands Northwestern University stands, and the Indigenous people who remain on this land today**.* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 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/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BL0PR04MB4705C4DACEF54B6D85D412E6A4EE9%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.prod.outlook.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BL0PR04MB4705C4DACEF54B6D85D412E6A4EE9%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 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/CarbonDioxideRemoval/2839AF71-2331-46C7-B9F7-6B93FF07B314%40sbcglobal.net <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/2839AF71-2331-46C7-B9F7-6B93FF07B314%40sbcglobal.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 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/CarbonDioxideRemoval/C4AF8449-45AB-4272-A41B-1C23BF2F0546%40rodagroup.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/C4AF8449-45AB-4272-A41B-1C23BF2F0546%40rodagroup.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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9D3U84Ka9fdw2CPqtdqUs8JTMgD%3DHtzdp%2Bm8WwWQveBEA%40mail.gmail.com.
