Does Geoengineering Present a Moral Hazard? by Albert Lin :: SSRN

[Andrew Lockley]

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2152131

Albert Lin 

University of California, Davis - School of Law
August 23, 2012
Ecology Law Quarterly, Forthcoming 

Abstract:     
 Geoengineering, a set of unconventional, untested, and risky proposals for responding to climate change, has attracted growing attention in the wake of our collective failure so far to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Geoengineering research and deployment remain highly controversial, however, not only because of the risks involved, but also because of concern that geoengineering might undermine climate mitigation and adaptation efforts. The latter concern, often described as a moral hazard, has been questioned by some but not carefully explored. This article examines the critical question of whether geoengineering presents a moral hazard by drawing on empirical studies of moral hazard and risk compensation and on the psychology literature of heuristics and cultural cognition. The article finds it likely that geoengineering efforts will undermine mainstream strategies to combat climate change and suggests potential measures for ameliorating this moral hazard.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 39

Keywords: 
geoengineering, climate change, moral hazard, risk compensation

Accepted Paper Series

[Mike MacCracken]

Initial reactions to the abstract:

While many of the geoengineering approaches might be said to be unconventional (even though virtually all imitate some natural or existing phenomenon) and untested (at least untested adequately), this charge that the proposals are risky seems to me to need to be put in the context of the very great risks created by the increasing concentrations of GHGs (indeed, even by sustaining the concentrations that we have) for which geoengineering approaches are intended to reduce the likelihood. This issue is not geoengineering or not, but human-induced climate change due to GHGs with or without various approaches to geoengineering. There will be different consequences depending on the choices made, and the issue would seem to be the relative consequences (very likely all negative compared to having human-induced GHG emissions being near zero). And yes, governance aspects and moral hazard and Man-nature perspectives, etc. are different too, and so is the likelihood of international actions on cutting emissions, etc., so a lot to consider. But the critical matter this is a relative risk issue—and saying that geoengineering alone (as done here) is (inherently) risky seems to me to be an unfortunate way to start off the consideration.

Mike MacCracken

[Josh Horton]

This article makes for an interesting read but is based on some fuzzy logic.  To my knowledge, the limited empirical data available on moral hazard in the geoengineering context (Ipsos MORI, work by Dan Kahan, etc.) all suggest that the issue is pretty inconsequential.  But here the author simply dimisses that data in favor of purely theoretical psychological considerations from which he derives bold and confident predictions that moral hazard is real and deeply problematic: "Heuristics and biases will influence risk perceptions among the general public, fostering overconfidence in seemingly easy technological 'solutions' and neglect of accompanying risks, and cultural cognition will lead persons of hierarchical and individualistic orientations to favor geoengineering over other climate policy options" (pp. 23-24).  Whatever happened to basing predictions on facts and observations?

Josh Horton