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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Corner and Pidgeon (2014) investigated whether people believe there is a moral hazard. My study, like Kahan et al.’s (2015), tests whether there is a moral hazard problem.

  2. 2.

    Geoengineering has nonetheless been mentioned in the news, and some respondents will already have known something about it.

  3. 3.

    Angel (2006) and proposes means of using small mirrors in space, and Sánchez and McInnes (2015) provide a recent discussion of the use of a large orbiting mirror.

  4. 4.

    Introductions to different geoengineering techniques could have different impacts on public support for greenhouse gas emissions reductions. That this study only examines how public opinion responds to brief introductions of two particular techniques is a limitation, and future studies should test the impacts of others.

  5. 5.

    Examples are the World Values Surveys/European Values Studies and the International Social Survey Programme.

  6. 6.

    Trust and beliefs are tightly linked, as influential definitions of trust show (see Nannestad 2008).

  7. 7.

    See: http://manifesto-project.wzb.eu. Benoit and Laver (2007) provide a longer discussion of these three parties’ relative placements on a left-right scale, concluding that at some times, in some ways, the Liberal Democrats have fallen to the left of Labour in terms of their policy agenda—and they have often had a stronger focus on environmental protection.

  8. 8.

    These probabilities therefore quantify how confident we can be that the estimated positive/negative relationship is really positive/negative.

  9. 9.

    Other than for non-voters, the interaction effects in Model T3 are more negative than the base effect (for Conservatives) is positive. This implies that if anything hearing about geoengineering reduces the trust of most non-Conservatives. But the magnitude of this effect is miniscule.

  10. 10.

    95 % Bayesian credible intervals: 39–67 % and 60–81 %, respectively.

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):17184–17189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bellamy R, Hulme M (2011) Beyond the tipping point: understanding perceptions of abrupt climate change and their implications. Weather Clim Soc 3:48–60

    Article  Google 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 23:926–937

    Article  Google 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):269–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Benoit K, Laver M (2007) Estimating party policy positions: comparing expert surveys and hand-coded content analysis. Elect Stud 26(1):90–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Campbell TH, Kay AC (2014) Solution aversion: on the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. J Pers Soc Psychol 107(5):809–824

    Article  Google 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):291–308

    Article  Google 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):19–29

    Article  Google 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 372:20140063

    Article  Google 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 3:451–466

    Article  Google 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 23:938–947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hadfield J (2010) MCMC methods for multi-response generalised linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R Package. J Stat Softw 33:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Howell RA, Capstick S, Whitmarsh L (2016) Impacts of adaptation and responsibility framings on attitudes towards climate change mitigation. Clim Chang 136:445–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hulme M (2012) Climate change: climate engineering through stratospheric aerosol injection. Prog Phys Geogr 36(5):694–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hulme M (2014) Can science fix climate change? A case against climate engineering. Polity Press

  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)

  17. Jamieson D (1996) Ethics and intentional climate change. Clim Chang 33:323–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jones MD (2011) Leading the way to compromise? Cultural theory and climate change opinion. PS Politic Sci Politic 720–725

  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 2:732–735

    Article  Google 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):192–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Keith D (2013) A case for climate engineering. MIT Press

  22. Keith DW, Parson E, Morgan MG (2010) Research on global sun block needed now. Nature 463:426–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lin AC (2013) Does geoengineering present a moral hazard? Ecol Law Quart 40(3):673–712

    Google 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 23:465–474

    Article  Google 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):633–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mercer AM, Keith DW, Sharp JD (2011) Public understanding of solar radiation management. Environ Res Lett 6:044006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Millard-Ball A (2012) The Tuvalu Syndrome: can geoengineering solve climate’s collective action problem? Clim Chang 110:1047–1066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Nannestad P (2008) What have we learned about generalized trust, if anything? Annu Rev Polit Sci 11:413–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. National Academy of Sciences (2015) Climate intervention: carbon dioxide removal and reliable sequestration. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  30. Nawrotzki RJ (2012) The politics of environmental concern: a cross-national analysis. Organ Environ 25(3):286–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Parry IWH, Norregaard J, Heine D (2012) Environmental tax reform: principles from theory and practice. Ann Rev Resour Econ 4:101–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Parson EA, Keith DW (2013) End the deadlock on governance of geoengineering research. Science 339:1278–1279

    Article  Google 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 370:4176–4196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pidgeon N, Parkhill K, Corner A, Vaughan N (2013) Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the spice project. Nat Clim Chang 3:451–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rayner S, Heyward C, Kruger T, Pidgeon N, Redgwell C, Savulescu J (2013) The Oxford principles. Clim Chang 121:499–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Robock A (2008) 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Bull At Sci 64(2):14–18, 59

    Article  Google 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), e0136648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Schneider SH (2001) Earth systems engineering and management. Nature 409:417–421

    Article  Google 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. 66

  41. Shepherd JG (2012) Geoengineering the climate: an overview and update. Phil Trans R Soc A 370:4166–4175

    Article  Google 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 88:64–76

    Google 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)

  45. Wright MJ, Teagle DAH, Feetham PM (2014) A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering. Nat Clim Chang 4:106–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malcolm Fairbrother.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fairbrother, M. Geoengineering, moral hazard, and trust in climate science: evidence from a survey experiment in Britain. Climatic Change 139, 477–489 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1818-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Global Warming
  • Moral Hazard
  • Political Ideology
  • Climate Science
  • Solar Radiation Management