Solar geoengineering is increasingly being considered a realistic approach to managing climate change. One crucial concern is whether geoengineering crowds out efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Adding to a limited body of empirical evidence, we use a survey experiment to estimate how informing the U.S. public about solar geoengineering impacts support for a proposed national carbon tax. In contrast to the crowding-out hypothesis, we find that respondents who are provided with information about geoengineering are significantly more likely to support the tax. Further, we document systematic variation as people with egalitarian and communitarian worldviews are more responsive to the information relative to those with hierarchical and individualist worldviews. Our study suggests that the availability and awareness of solar geoengineering options may lead to an increase in greenhouse gas abatement efforts.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
David Keith, borrowing from the insurance literature, referred to the potential for solar engineering to diminish mitigation efforts as “moral hazard” (Keith 2000), and while this term has gained traction in the literature, many consider mitigation displacement (crowding-out) to be more appropriate (Morrow 2014).
See Reynolds (2019) for a summary of the literature.
Campbell-Arvai et al. (2017) consider carbon dioxide removal and find that learning about that technology can reduce support for mitigation policies.
Game-theoretic studies (e.g., Millard-Ball 2012, and Urpelainen 2012) have also illustrated the possibility that a credible threat of future geoengineering can provide enough incentive for self-interested countries to increase their current abatement levels and to form meaningful climate agreements.
In a closely related study, Kahan et al. (2015) examined how worldviews may explain any effect that geoengineering may have on people’s concern for climate change. Raimi et al. (2019) considers political ideology and finds that conservatives and moderates are less affected by the prospects of solar geoengineering.
Public perception is just one factor in the decision-making process on the introduction of geoengineering technologies. Policymakers, scientists, lobby groups, and media play an important role in the development and deployment of technologies.
We note that we cannot disentangle that the treatment introduces both additional content and additional text. Thus the treatment effect should be interpreted as the behavioral response to the addition of solar radiation information.
Respondents could choose between “Yes—support the proposal” and “No—oppose the proposal”.
A chi-square test for covariate balance failed to reject the null that the covariates are balanced (p = 0.999).
Concern for climate change, tax efficacy in reducing emissions and tax negative impact on local economy are measured using a 5-point Likert scale with higher numbers indicating more concern, greater efficacy and more negative impact.
Results are robust to probit and logit specifications.
Following the literature, we elicited the level of certainty that respondents had in their referendum vote. A test of proportions indicates no significant difference between the baseline and treatment groups (p = 0.179).
Baron J (2006) Thinking about global warming. Clim Chang 77:137–150
Barrett S (2008) The incredible economics of geoengineering. Environ Resour Econ 39:45–54
Burns ET, Flegal JA, Keith DW, Mahajan A, Tingley D, Wagner G (2016) What do people think when they think about solar geoengineering? A review of empirical social science literature, and prospects for future research. Earth’s Future 4:536–542
Campbell-Arvai V, Hart PS, Raimi KT, Wolske KS (2017) The influence of learning about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on support for mitigation policies. Clim Chang 143:321–336
Carlisle DP, Feetham PM, Wright MJ, Teagle D (2020) The public remain uninformed and wary of climate engineering. Clim Chang 160(2):303–322
Cherry TL, Kallbekken S, Kroll S (2017) Accepting market failure: worldviews and the opposition to corrective environmental policies. J Environ Econ Manag 85:193–204
Douglas M, Wildasky A (1982) Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. University of California Press, Berkeley
EPIC-APNORC (2019) Is the public willing to pay to help fix climate change? Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. https://apnorc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/EPIC-fact-sheet_v4_DTP.pdf
Fairbrother M (2016) Geoengineering, moral hazard, and trust in climate science: evidence from a survey experiment in Britain. Clim Chang 139(3–4):477–489
Kahan DM, Braman D, Gastil J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (2007) Culture and identity-protective cognition: explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. J Empir Leg Stud 4:465–505
Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Braman D (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res 14(2):147–174
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
Keith DW (2000) Geoengineering the climate: history and prospect. Ann Rev Energy Econ 25:245–284
Lawrence MG, Crutzen PJ (2016) Was breaking the taboo on research on climate engineering via albedo modification a moral hazard, or a moral imperative? Earth’s Future 5(2):136–143
Leiserowitz A (2006) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. Clim Chang 77:45–72
Mahajan A, Tingley D, Wagner G (2019) Fast, cheap, and imperfect? US public opinion about solar geoengineering. Environ Pol 28(3):523–543
Merk C, Ponitzsch G, Rehdanz K (2016) Knowledge about aerosol injection does not reduce individual mitigation efforts. Environ Res Lett 11(5):1–6
Millard-Ball A (2012) The Tuvalu syndrome: can geoengineering solve climate’s collective action problem? Clim Chang 110(3–4):1047–1066
Moreno-Cruz JB (2015) Mitigation and the geoengineering threat. Resour Energy Econ 41(2):248–263
Morrow DR (2014) Ethical aspects of the mitigation obstruction argument against climate engineering research. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 372(2031):20140062
Peters GP, Andrew RM, Canadell JG, Friedlingstein P, Jackson RB, Korsbakken JI, Le Quere C, Peregon A (2020) Carbon dioxide emissions continue to grow amidst slowly emerging climate policies. Nat Clim Chang 10:3–6
Raimi KT, Maki A, Dana D, Vandenbergh MP (2019) Framing of geoengineering affects support for climate change mitigation. Environ Commun 13(3):300–319
Reynolds J (2015) A critical examination of the climate engineering moral hazard and risk compensation concern. Anthropocene Rev 2:174–191
Reynolds J (2019) The governance of solar geoengineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Schneider SH (1996) Geoengineering: could – or should – we do it? Clim Chang 33:291–302
Urpelainen J (2012) Geoengineering and global warming: a strategic perspective. Int Environ Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 12(4):375–389
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 2033855 and 1948154.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Cherry, T.L., Kallbekken, S., Kroll, S. et al. Does solar geoengineering crowd out climate change mitigation efforts? Evidence from a stated preference referendum on a carbon tax. Climatic Change 165, 6 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03009-z
- Climate change
- Solar geoengineering
- Moral hazard