The findings here are interesting and seem not that unusual for this kind of research - small discernible effects (often statistically insignificant) on opinions result from exposure a short piece of information - makes intuitive sense of course.
But the conclusion they wish to draw that 'concerns about moral hazard should not discourage research on solar geoengineering' seems a huge leap to me. It's based on the idea that the public's view is a or the key factor for whether mitigation is deterred/unaffected/galvanised by SRM being researched and presented as a policy option. This is not a very solid assumption in my view. 'Public opinion' (which is affected by much elser than 'realistic messages' anyway) does not determine how policy ideas interact, and I'd say the two would in fact be especially loosely connected in most polities precisely when it comes to SRM which would likely be determined more by elites than by local or global public opinion (if such a thing exists), at least compared to mitigation and adaptation options. Perhaps in some very successful participatory democratic polities (maybe switzerland) it might have some validity to say 'if presented neutrally to the public it won't affect mitigation full-stop' but for most of the world SRM research could be used to influence or legitimise mitigation levels through many other routes, political ideological economic socio-technical and market. In the US there is already a substantial majority polling consistently in favour of faster US mitigation policies and joining international treaties. If public support is the key, that might not be the case There is plenty of work critiquing the behavioralist 'opinion-information framing' approach taken to 'moral hazard' (some using the broader notion of deterring mitigation to avoid the narrow framing of moral hazard as an individual opinion problem), but it tends not to get taken into account. Unfortunately. This piece cites some other individualist-behaviour public opinion surveys, seemingly US-oriented ones too. Also: the whole debate about SRM research seems unable to move from a dichotomy of 'any and all research is good vs no research at all' - two straw dogs. Would be great to move to something more like 'what kind, what mix and under what conditions to do research into this an other under-explored pathways' and wider issues of how to navigate the world beyond Paris targets in a broader sense than SRM and CDR. Olaf On Monday, 15 September 2025 at 18:46:12 UTC+2 Geoengineering News wrote: > > https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-experimental-political-science/article/balanced-messaging-about-solar-geoengineering-does-not-reduce-average-support-for-emissions-reductions/1BD6872E981BAC46EB4394BF4FA0B163 > > *Authors*: Damian Antoan, Nicholas Chiang, Spencer Dearman, Santiago > Espejel, Manarldeen Fajors, Darina Huang, Elliott Husseman, Justin Lavigne, > Isabella Lin, Neel Maheshwari, Zidane Marinez, George Nottley, Julien Perce > et al. > > *11 September 2025* > > *Abstract* > Solar geoengineering offers a speculative means to cool the planet by > reflecting solar radiation into space. While some research suggests that > awareness of solar geoengineering could reduce public support for > decarbonization through a moral hazard mechanism, other studies indicate > that it could serve as a “clarion call” that motivates further action. > Using a pre-registered factorial design, we assess how sharing balanced > information on solar geoengineering affects attitudes toward > decarbonization policies and climate attitudes among 2,509 US residents. We > do not find that solar geoengineering information affects support for > decarbonization on average, though it may increase support among initially > less supportive subgroups; moreover, this information tends to increase the > perception that climate change is a daunting problem that cannot be > resolved without decarbonization. Our results suggest that concerns about > moral hazard should not discourage research on solar geoengineering – as > long as the public encounters realistic messages about solar > geoengineering’s role. > > *Source: Cambridge University Press* > -- 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/034d0fea-f241-44cc-a0af-025ca29a129an%40googlegroups.com.
