Green Moral Hazards

Wagner, Gernot; Zizzamia, Daniel

doi:10.1080/21550085.2021.1940449

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 57 publications

(42 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some have questioned the validity of applying MH this way, in part because CDR or geoengineering are not classical principal‐agent problems (Wagner & Zizzamia, 2021). In the case of CDR, it is not always clear who bears the risks that come with substitution—for example, when the burden of climate action is passed on to other contemporary actors or future generations (Anderson & Peters, 2016; Boettcher & Schäfer, 2017; Callies & Moellendorf, 2021; McLaren, 2016b).…”

Section: Unpacking Moral Hazard Mitigation Deterrence and Delaymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some of these studies are premised on testing whether learning about CDR (or geoengineering as a whole) reduces the perceived threat of climate change and/or support for mitigation. Reynolds (2015) cites existing studies showing mixed results and even support for what he terms a” reverse moral hazard,” that is, the idea that learning about CDR/geoengineering leads to an increased willingness to undertake emission reductions (see also, e.g., Fabre & Wagner, 2020; Wagner & Zizzamia, 2021). Likewise, recent experimental studies in a US context by Hart et al (2022) and Austin and Converse (2021) show little or no evidence that learning about CDR decreases support for mitigation action.…”

Section: Why We Disagree About the Role Of Carbon Removalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions?

Carton

Hougaard

Markusson

et al. 2023

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carbon dioxide removal is rapidly becoming a key focus in climate research and politics. This is raising concerns of "moral hazard" or "mitigation deterrence," that is, the risk that promises of and/or efforts to pursue carbon removal end up reducing or delaying near-term mitigation efforts. Some, however, contest this risk, arguing that it is overstated or lacking evidence. In this review, we explore the reasons behind the disagreement in the literature. We unpack the different ways in which moral hazard/mitigation deterrence (MH/MD) is conceptualized and examine how these conceptualizations inform assessments of MH/MD risks. We find that MH/MD is a commonly recognized feature of modeled mitigation pathways but that conclusions as to the realworld existence of MH/MD diverge on individualistic versus structural approaches to examining it. Individualistic approaches favor narrow conceptualizations of MH/MD, which tend to exclude the wider political-economic contexts in which carbon removal emerges. This exclusion limits the value and relevance of such approaches. We argue for a broader understanding of what counts as evidence of delaying practices and propose a research agenda that complements theoretical accounts of MH/MD with empirical studies of the political-economic structures that may drive mitigation deterrence dynamics.

show abstract

Section: Unpacking Moral Hazard Mitigation Deterrence and Delaymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Why We Disagree About the Role Of Carbon Removalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions?

Carton

Hougaard

Markusson

et al. 2023

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research is proceeding on these and other approaches to SRM. While all scientific research in the service of reducing GHGs in the atmosphere is to be welcomed, the moral question of whether such techniques should be deployed at all needs to be addressed simultaneously (Wagner and Zizzamia, 2021;Shayegh, 2019).…”

Section: Geoengineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Change Mitigation Technologies: Prospects and Challenges

Arogyaswamy¹

2022

MAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the significant, perhaps momentous, developments in the effort to mitigate climate change has been the convergence around the target of Net Zero Emissions (NZE). The path to NZE envisions a massive increase in the installed capacity of renewable energies (REs)accompanied by a radical reduction in fossil energies. The paper outlines the main technologies required to make renewables a reliable alternative. Storage mechanisms such as batteries, hydrogen, and pumped storage are reviewed. Major impediments to the replacement of fossil fuels with renewable sources include technological, political, and social lock ins. Since NZE emissions are unlikely to be realized without installing negative emission devices, carbon dioxide removal methods and their concomitant challenges are discussed. Demand side mitigation in the transport, buildings, and industry sectors, relevant technological solutions, and adjustments to social preferences are briefly addressed. In addition to analyzing the challenges to realize an NZE world, the paper cautions against a single metric focus while ignoring concerns over adaptation, rising inequalities, water and food availability, and biodiversity. The financial implications of the various mitigation technologies are highlighted along with the need to transfer technologies and funds to developing nations to avoid and/or reduce emissions.   

show abstract

“…phenomenon is well-grounded theoretically. [1][2] Empirical evidence primarily relies on statedpreference surveys 3,4 , which can fall prey to acquiescence bias, among other issues. 5 The earliest controlled revealed-preference analysis (n~650) shows 'inverse' moral hazard or 'crowding in', hypothesized to be linked to fear of SRM 6 , a conclusion since supported by lab experiments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Presenting balanced geoengineering information has little effect on mitigation engagement

Merk,

Wagner

2024

Climatic Change

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Moral hazard' links geoengineering to mitigation via the fear that either solar geoengineering (solar radiation management, SRM) or carbon dioxide removal (CDR) might crowd out the desire to cut emissions. We test moral hazard versus its inverse in the first large-scale, revealedpreference experiments (n~340,000) and find that only extreme political messages lead to either outcome for some. Our results indicate the importance of actors and reasoned narratives of geoengineering to help guide public discourse. JEL-Codes: Q540, Q580.

show abstract

Green Moral Hazards

Cited by 9 publications

References 57 publications

Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions?

Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions?

Climate Change Mitigation Technologies: Prospects and Challenges

Presenting balanced geoengineering information has little effect on mitigation engagement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About