Does solar geoengineering crowd out climate change mitigation efforts? Evidence from a stated preference referendum on a carbon tax

Abstract

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.

Notes

  1. 1.

    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).

  2. 2.

    See Reynolds (2019) for a summary of the literature.

  3. 3.

    Campbell-Arvai et al. (2017) consider carbon dioxide removal and find that learning about that technology can reduce support for mitigation policies.

  4. 4.

    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.

  5. 5.

    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.

  6. 6.

    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.

  7. 7.

    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.

  8. 8.

    Respondents could choose between “Yes—support the proposal” and “No—oppose the proposal”.

  9. 9.

    A chi-square test for covariate balance failed to reject the null that the covariates are balanced (p = 0.999).

  10. 10.

    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.

  11. 11.

    Results are robust to probit and logit specifications.

  12. 12.

    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).

References

  1. Baron J (2006) Thinking about global warming. Clim Chang 77:137–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barrett S (2008) The incredible economics of geoengineering. Environ Resour Econ 39:45–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carlisle DP, Feetham PM, Wright MJ, Teagle D (2020) The public remain uninformed and wary of climate engineering. Clim Chang 160(2):303–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Douglas M, Wildasky A (1982) Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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

  9. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Braman D (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res 14(2):147–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 

  13. Keith DW (2000) Geoengineering the climate: history and prospect. Ann Rev Energy Econ 25:245–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Leiserowitz A (2006) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. Clim Chang 77:45–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mahajan A, Tingley D, Wagner G (2019) Fast, cheap, and imperfect? US public opinion about solar geoengineering. Environ Pol 28(3):523–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Merk C, Ponitzsch G, Rehdanz K (2016) Knowledge about aerosol injection does not reduce individual mitigation efforts. Environ Res Lett 11(5):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Millard-Ball A (2012) The Tuvalu syndrome: can geoengineering solve climate’s collective action problem? Clim Chang 110(3–4):1047–1066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Moreno-Cruz JB (2015) Mitigation and the geoengineering threat. Resour Energy Econ 41(2):248–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Morrow DR (2014) Ethical aspects of the mitigation obstruction argument against climate engineering research. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 372(2031):20140062

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Raimi KT, Maki A, Dana D, Vandenbergh MP (2019) Framing of geoengineering affects support for climate change mitigation. Environ Commun 13(3):300–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Reynolds J (2015) A critical examination of the climate engineering moral hazard and risk compensation concern. Anthropocene Rev 2:174–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Reynolds J (2019) The governance of solar geoengineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  25. Schneider SH (1996) Geoengineering: could – or should – we do it? Clim Chang 33:291–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Urpelainen J (2012) Geoengineering and global warming: a strategic perspective. Int Environ Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 12(4):375–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 2033855 and 1948154.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Todd L. Cherry.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

ESM 1

(DOCX 339 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Climate change
  • Solar geoengineering
  • Moral hazard
  • Emissions
  • Experiment