Balanced Messaging about Solar Geoengineering does not Reduce Average Support for Emissions Reductions

[Geoengineering News]

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

[Olaf Corry]

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

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear Olaf--The reason that I, at least, am now taking a different view on the moral hazard argument is that, with solar and wind, being recognized by the financial and expert communities as the least cost source of electricity (and with electricity being more efficient than combustion of fossil fuels for fulfilling many of the purposes for which energy is needed), I just do not see a sliding back to use of coal or petroleum. Natural gas is still competitive in some situations, but with cost of wind and solar still dropping and a few year backlog in natural gas fired turbines, as I understand it, fossil fuels are being priced out of the market. Yes, President Trump wants to bring back coal, but it is costing consumers billions to be doing so, and I just don't see how that can last long.

 

What it seems to me is replacing the slide back to fossil fuels moral hazard argument is one based on the increasing damage and deaths that will be coming while climate intervention is being considered and debated. The metaphor that comes to mind for me is of coming upon a seriously bleeding accident victim and getting into arguments about whether the tourniquet is fully expert approved or not instead of using possibly imperfect tourniquet materials that are available to keep the victim alive until better care and options are available. With the threats of extremely hot and deadly heatwaves in nations without widespread air-conditioning, with the increasing movement of major glacial ice streams when many coastal plains and islands are at very low elevations, and with the increasing amounts and intensity of extreme storms as temperatures and  so the water carrying capacity of the atmosphere increasing, I think the increasing risks to lives and well-being is the moral hazard to be paid attention to as the debate about considering, researching and deploying is being made more and more complicated and time-consuming and greater and greater overshoot of 20^th century is going ahead and projections of eventual stabilization are at 2.5 C and above.

 

Having been involved in research of human-induced climate change for 50 years and with emissions still going up, much less nearing zero, I just think it time we rethink and reframe the moral hazard argument which it seems, in the form it has been in the past, does not seem to have really connected with the public or policymakers. And if not now, when?

 

Best, Mike MacCracken

 

 

--
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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/034d0fea-f241-44cc-a0af-025ca29a129an%40googlegroups.com.

[Douglas MacMartin]

Agree 100% with Olaf that public opinion surveys aren't necessarily indicative of government policy (not hard to find things in the US where surveys show 80+ % support but that aren't what actually happens, e.g. on common sense gun control for example).

I personally, though, don't think people would generally look at something like SAI as "great, now we don't need to cut emissions" any more than people run red lights because they have airbags; I really don't think, if it winds up being used, that it looks like the world we were hoping for.  I also find the argument that we shouldn't research it because there might be a moral hazard itself a deeply problematic position from a moral perspective, basically saying that rich people won't cut their emissions unless they watch enough poor people dying on TV.

But my question for Olaf on research is what line you think is hard to draw?  Generally any report has come out saying some experimentation is ok and we shouldn't deploy or do "large" experiments, without ever coming up with firm definitions for what constitutes "large"... presumably that means that if there is good reason to conduct an experiment (because it meaningfully reduces relevant uncertainty, for example) and that experiment has negligible environmental impact, then it's ok, and obviously something that meaningfully reduces global mean temperature (say by 0.1C, so it's commensurate with interannual variability) would not be ok.  (But we're so far from even being able to do the latter, and no-one is proposing it, and everyone would agree that that is deployment and not just research, that there's no reason to even debate that point).  There are people who say "no outdoor experimentation, even if it releases 1 microgram", but those people presumably really don't want any research and are just using an experiment as an artificial boundary that they think they argue against, whereas it's harder to argue against modeling...

doug

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/193253233.64727.1760707559666%40connect.xfinity.com.

[Olaf Corry]

Thanks Mike and Doug!

I of course agree we are in a dire situation regarding the climate. The structural contradiction between the ever expanding economic system that generates ever rising emissions on the one hand and the limits of ecosystems and societies to cope with the effects is profound and troubling. It's that contradiction that the exploration of SRM should be seen in the context of, IMO - rather than in terms of a one-off accidental injury, say.

I'm also glad we seem to agree that public opinion-information experiments don't provide a sufficient evidence base for concluding on whether mitigation deterrence is an issue that SRM research needs to take heed of. This is an unwarranted conclusion of the paper I reacted to.

However, Mike instead seems to suggest that SRM research can dismiss mitigation deterrence worries (or the narrower 'moral hazard') because renewables are cheaper so backsliding is 'unlikely'. I find that a very unconvincing understanding of energy system and societal transformation. It's true renewables like solar and wind are now often the cheapest sources of energy (hooray), but the transition away from fossil fuels is shaped by much more than current levelised cost of energy. There is powerful inertia from:

- deeply entrenched systems including sunk investments in fossil infrastructure, 

- high short-term ROI for oil and gas (which fiduciary duties to shareholder profit make energy giants consistently prioritise, hence most investment is still in fossil fuels), 

- the capital intensity of renewable deployment. 

- geopolitical dependencies on fossil, 

- the risk of stranded assets and market instability, 

- influence of fossil fuel lobbying (they are way better connected and more powerful than renewables industries, so far) 

etc.

Energy transition require deliberate policy, institutional reform, political struggles and cultural change to overcome structural barriers to ensure that cheaper renewables actually displace fossil energy at scale - and preferably much faster than so far. 

SRM is entering a political forcefield, not just a new consumer price equilibrium.

Doug -  I have always struggled with the presumption that outdoor/indoor is crucial with all indoor fine, outdoor risky. This presumes risks are basically only physical for starters. And the scale debate  - well, scale is perhaps a proxy for physical risk, but an imperfect one even for those risks. The conversation has to be broader than the scale of outdoor experiments though, important though that probably is - more in terms of how to and within what overall framework to research and explore other options - alongside ramping up mitigation urgently. 

A first step could be to not be in denial or trivialise the risks. Second step is to get beyond the 'declaratory approach' - declaring that SRM should not interfere with or replace accelerated emissions - and then essentially just hoping for the best. That's not a strategy. 

Finally the rhetorical notion that rich people when they watch others die on TV will trigger serious mitigation is a (strange) version of the public-opinion-determines-mitigation argument. Rich people watch others die of poverty on TV all the time anyway. I guess your point is that you think researching SRM is important to prevent mass death among the poor (and therefore not deterring mitigation by such research is not a priority?). Researching SRM in a way that avoids it making more crisis and mortality would still be an important question - a question that is also often side-stepped by making it into a binary research/not research SRM. Can we talk about how to best pursue multiple aims and strategies without creating new problems. We have plenty already.

I'll keep it shortish for now as I'm recovering from eye surgery (but happy to continue convos later obviously). 

Olaf