https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/5661/?s=08
Authors Philipp Schoenegger, Kian Mintz-Woo Dates *Published: **2023-07-08* DOI https://doi.org/10.31223/X52383 Abstract Geoengineering (especially solar radiation management) may help to reduce the negative outcomes of climate change by minimising or reversing global warming. However, many express the worry that geoengineering may pose a moral hazard, i.e., that information about geoengineering may lead to a reduction in climate change mitigation efforts. In this paper, we report a large-scale pre-registered, moneyincentivised, online experiment with a representative US sample (N=2500). We compare actual behaviour (donations to climate change charities and clicks on climate change petition links) as well as stated preferences (support for a carbon tax and self-reported intentions to reduce emissions) between participants who receive information about geoengineering with two control groups (a salience control that shows information about climate change generally and a content control that shows information about a different topic). Behavioural choices are made with an earned endowment, and stated preference responses are incentivised via the Bayesian Truth Serum. We fail to find a significant impact of receiving information about geoengineering, and based on equivalence tests, we provide evidence in favour of the absence of such an effect. We take this to provide evidence for the claim that there is no moral hazard in this context. Subjects Social and Behavioral Sciences Keywords Moral Hazard, geoengineering, climate intervention Source: EarthRXiv -- 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/CAHJsh99%2BsW0%2B9LhT2wtzq8_t7sapfgpdpNJCAf7zp7hFD6NHnQ%40mail.gmail.com.
