Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 139, Issue 3–4, pp 477–489 | Cite as

Geoengineering, moral hazard, and trust in climate science: evidence from a survey experiment in Britain

  • Malcolm Fairbrother
Article

Abstract

Geoengineering could be taken by the public as a way of dealing with climate change without reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This paper presents the results of survey experiments testing whether hearing about solar radiation management (SRM) affects people’s support for taxing polluting energy and/or their trust in climate science. For a nationally representative sample of respondents in Britain, I found that receiving a brief introduction to SRM had no impact on most people’s willingness to pay taxes, nor on their trust in climate science. Hearing about this form of geoengineering therefore appears unlikely to erode support for emissions reductions. Specifically for political conservatives asked first about paying taxes, moreover, hearing about SRM increased trust in climate science. These and other results of the experiments also provide partial support for the theory that conservatives’ lower trust in climate science generally stems from their aversion to regulatory action by the state.

Keywords

Global Warming Moral Hazard Political Ideology Climate Science Solar Radiation Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Angel R (2006) Feasibility of cooling the Earth with a cloud of small spacecraft near the inner Lagrange point (L1). PNAS 103(46):17184–17189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellamy R, Hulme M (2011) Beyond the tipping point: understanding perceptions of abrupt climate change and their implications. Weather Clim Soc 3:48–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellamy R, Chilvers J, Vaughan NE, Lenton TM (2013) ‘Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal: multi-criteria mapping of options for tackling climate change. Glob Environ Chang 23:926–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellamy R, Chilvers J, Vaughan NE (2016) Deliberative Mapping of options for tackling climate change: citizens and specialists ‘open up’ appraisal of geoengineering. Public Underst Sci 25(3):269–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benoit K, Laver M (2007) Estimating party policy positions: comparing expert surveys and hand-coded content analysis. Elect Stud 26(1):90–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell TH, Kay AC (2014) Solution aversion: on the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. J Pers Soc Psychol 107(5):809–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cao X, Milner HV, Prakash A, Ward H (2014) Research frontiers in comparative and international environmental politics: an introduction. Comp Pol Stud 47(3):291–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carrico AR, Truelove HB, Vandenbergh MP, Dana D (2015) Does learning about climate change adaptation change support for mitigation? J Environ Psychol 41(1):19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corner A, Pidgeon N (2014) Geoengineering, climate change scepticism and the ‘moral hazard’ argument: an experimental study of uk public perceptions. Phil Trans R Soc A 372:20140063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corner A, Pidgeon N, Parkhill K (2012) Perceptions of geoengineering: public attitudes, stakeholder perspectives, and the challenge of ‘upstream’ engagement. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 3:451–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Corner A, Parkhill K, Pidgeon N, Vaughan NE (2013) Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Glob Environ Chang 23:938–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hadfield J (2010) MCMC methods for multi-response generalised linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R Package. J Stat Softw 33:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Howell RA, Capstick S, Whitmarsh L (2016) Impacts of adaptation and responsibility framings on attitudes towards climate change mitigation. Clim Chang 136:445–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hulme M (2012) Climate change: climate engineering through stratospheric aerosol injection. Prog Phys Geogr 36(5):694–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hulme M (2014) Can science fix climate change? A case against climate engineering. Polity PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Ipsos MORI (2010) Experiment earth? Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering. Report on a public dialogue conducted for the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)Google Scholar
  17. Jamieson D (1996) Ethics and intentional climate change. Clim Chang 33:323–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jones MD (2011) Leading the way to compromise? Cultural theory and climate change opinion. PS Politic Sci Politic 720–725Google Scholar
  19. Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Ouellette LL, Braman D, Mandel GN (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat Clim Chang 2:732–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Tarantola T, Silva CL, Braman D (2015) Geoengineering and climate change polarization: testing a two-channel model of science communication. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 658(1):192–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keith D (2013) A case for climate engineering. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Keith DW, Parson E, Morgan MG (2010) Research on global sun block needed now. Nature 463:426–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin AC (2013) Does geoengineering present a moral hazard? Ecol Law Quart 40(3):673–712Google Scholar
  24. Macnaghten P, Szerszynski B (2013) Living the global social experiment: an analysis of public discourse on solar radiation management and its implications for governance. Glob Environ Chang 23:465–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Malka A, Krosnick JA, Langer G (2009) The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: trusted information sources shape public thinking. Risk Anal 29(5):633–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mercer AM, Keith DW, Sharp JD (2011) Public understanding of solar radiation management. Environ Res Lett 6:044006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Millard-Ball A (2012) The Tuvalu Syndrome: can geoengineering solve climate’s collective action problem? Clim Chang 110:1047–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nannestad P (2008) What have we learned about generalized trust, if anything? Annu Rev Polit Sci 11:413–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. National Academy of Sciences (2015) Climate intervention: carbon dioxide removal and reliable sequestration. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. Nawrotzki RJ (2012) The politics of environmental concern: a cross-national analysis. Organ Environ 25(3):286–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parry IWH, Norregaard J, Heine D (2012) Environmental tax reform: principles from theory and practice. Ann Rev Resour Econ 4:101–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Parson EA, Keith DW (2013) End the deadlock on governance of geoengineering research. Science 339:1278–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pidgeon N, Corner A, Parkhill K, Spence A, Butler C, Poortinga W (2012) Exploring early public responses to geoengineering. Phil Trans R Soc A 370:4176–4196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pidgeon N, Parkhill K, Corner A, Vaughan N (2013) Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the spice project. Nat Clim Chang 3:451–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rayner S, Heyward C, Kruger T, Pidgeon N, Redgwell C, Savulescu J (2013) The Oxford principles. Clim Chang 121:499–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Robock A (2008) 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Bull At Sci 64(2):14–18, 59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/
  38. Sánchez J-P, McInnes CR (2015) Optimal sunshade configurations for space-based geoengineering near the sun-earth L1 point. PLoS ONE 10(8), e0136648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schneider SH (2001) Earth systems engineering and management. Nature 409:417–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2012) Geoengineering in relation to the convention on biological diversity: technical and regulatory matters. CBD Technical Series No. 66Google Scholar
  41. Shepherd JG (2012) Geoengineering the climate: an overview and update. Phil Trans R Soc A 370:4166–4175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K (2011) Mice: multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw 45(3). http://www.jstatsoft.org/
  43. Victor DG, Morgan MG, Apt J, Steinbrune J (2009) The geoengineering option: a last resort against global warming? Foreign Aff 88:64–76Google Scholar
  44. Volkens A, Lehmann P, Matthieß T, Merz N, Regel S, Werner A (2015) The manifesto data collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2015a. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB)Google Scholar
  45. Wright MJ, Teagle DAH, Feetham PM (2014) A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering. Nat Clim Chang 4:106–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations