From moral hazard to risk-response feedback

[Geoeng Info]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209632100053X

From moral hazard to risk-response feedback

Joseph Jebari, Olúfẹ́mi O.Táíwò, Talbot M. Andrews,  Valentina Aquila, Brian Beckage, Mariia Belaia, Maggie Clifford, Jay Fuhrman, David P. Keller, Katharine J. Mach, David R. Morrow, Kaitlin T. Raimi, Daniele Visioni, Simon Nicholson, Christopher H. Trisos

Abstract

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments (IPCC) Special Report on 1.5 °C of global warming is clear. Nearly all pathways that hold global warming well below 2 °C involve carbon removal (IPCC, 2015). In addition, solar geoengineering is being considered as a potential tool to offset warming, especially to limit temperature until negative emissions technologies are sufficiently matured (MacMartin et al., 2018). Despite this, there has been a reluctance to embrace carbon removal and solar geoengineering, partly due to the perception that these technologies represent what is widely termed a “moral hazard”: that geoengineering will prevent people from developing the will to change their personal consumption and push for changes in infrastructure (Robock et al., 2010), erode political will for emissions cuts (Keith, 2007), or otherwise stimulate increased carbon emissions at the social-system level of analysis (Bunzl, 2008). These debates over carbon removal and geoengineering echo earlier ones over climate adaptation. We argue that debates over “moral hazard” in many areas of climate policy are unhelpful and misleading. We also propose an alternative framework for dealing with the tradeoffs that motivate the appeal to “moral hazard,” which we call “risk-response feedback.”

[Renaud de RICHTER]

The important thing is that the authors: " argue that debates over “moral hazard” in many areas of climate policy are unhelpful and misleading. We also propose an alternative framework for dealing with the tradeoffs that motivate the appeal to “moral hazard,” which we call “risk-response feedback.”

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpbpp_0E_%3DjWbPf4axjVmWEHCP7o2h13RxnUn83W1SaJMg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Andrew Lockley]

It's frustrating that my 5y old paper on this subject isn't more widely cited.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461452916659830

It pointed out clear errors with the moral hazard framing. These problems have never been addressed in other literature AFAIK, nor have other authors generally acted to correct the widespread labelling error we identified. 

Briefly, the correct terminology is:

Moral hazard - malfeasance 

Morale hazard - recklessness

This usage has been established for centuries. Conflating these two separate behaviours is an error, we argue.

Despite this, use of the seemingly flawed and erroneous unified concept of "moral hazard" is endemic in the literature on this subject. 

It's like a Doctor conflating type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and then wondering why they can't treat half their patients. 

Andrew 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHodn9_i%2BeqkXqOQ9aHzKjeFJPMn%2BkEkTWRn-DAA%3D9hJ-kwSXw%40mail.gmail.com.