IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v165y2021i1d10.1007_s10584-021-03009-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Todd L. Cherry

    (University of Wyoming
    CICERO Center for International Climate Research-Oslo)

  • Steffen Kallbekken

    (CICERO Center for International Climate Research-Oslo)

  • Stephan Kroll

    (Colorado State University)

  • David M. McEvoy

    (Appalachian State University)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Todd L. Cherry & Steffen Kallbekken & Stephan Kroll & David M. McEvoy, 2021. "Does solar geoengineering crowd out climate change mitigation efforts? Evidence from a stated preference referendum on a carbon tax," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-8, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:165:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-021-03009-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-021-03009-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-021-03009-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-021-03009-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cherry, Todd L. & Kallbekken, Steffen & Kroll, Stephan, 2017. "Accepting market failure: Cultural worldviews and the opposition to corrective environmental policies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 193-204.
    2. Moreno-Cruz, Juan B., 2015. "Mitigation and the geoengineering threat," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 248-263.
    3. Merk, Christine & Pönitzsch, Gert & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "Knowledge about aerosol injection does not reduce individual mitigation efforts," Kiel Working Papers 2006, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    4. Adam Millard-Ball, 2012. "The Tuvalu Syndrome," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 110(3), pages 1047-1066, February.
    5. Daniel P. Carlisle & Pamela M. Feetham & Malcolm J. Wright & Damon A. H. Teagle, 2020. "The public remain uninformed and wary of climate engineering," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 303-322, May.
    6. Johannes Urpelainen, 2012. "Geoengineering and global warming: a strategic perspective," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 375-389, November.
    7. Victoria Campbell-Arvai & P. Sol Hart & Kaitlin T. Raimi & Kimberly S. Wolske, 2017. "The influence of learning about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on support for mitigation policies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 321-336, August.
    8. Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Donald Braman, 2011. "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 147-174, February.
    9. G. P. Peters & R. M. Andrew & J. G. Canadell & P. Friedlingstein & R. B. Jackson & J. I. Korsbakken & C. Quéré & A. Peregon, 2020. "Carbon dioxide emissions continue to grow amidst slowly emerging climate policies," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 3-6, January.
    10. Malcolm Fairbrother, 2016. "Geoengineering, moral hazard, and trust in climate science: evidence from a survey experiment in Britain," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 139(3), pages 477-489, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Toby Bolsen & Risa Palm & Russell E. Luke, 2023. "Public response to solar geoengineering: how media frames about stratospheric aerosol injection affect opinions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(8), pages 1-21, August.
    2. Beckage, Brian & Lacasse, Katherine & Raimi, Kaitlin T. & Visioni, Daniele, 2023. "Integrating Risk Perception with Climate Models to Understand the Potential Deployment of Solar Radiation Modification to Mitigate Climate Change," RFF Working Paper Series 23-22, Resources for the Future.
    3. Kelly Wanser & Sarah J. Doherty & James W. Hurrell & Alex Wong, 2022. "Near-term climate risks and sunlight reflection modification: a roadmap approach for physical sciences research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 174(3), pages 1-20, October.
    4. Todd L. Cherry & Stephan Kroll & David M. McEvoy, 2023. "Climate cooperation with risky solar geoengineering," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(10), pages 1-14, October.
    5. Christine Merk & Gernot Wagner, 2024. "Presenting balanced geoengineering information has little effect on mitigation engagement," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(1), pages 1-17, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adrien Fabre & Gernot Wagner, 2020. "Availability of risky geoengineering can make an ambitious climate mitigation agreement more likely," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-4, December.
    2. Muhammet A. Bas & Aseem Mahajan, 2020. "Contesting the climate," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 1985-2002, October.
    3. Heyen, Daniel & Horton, Joshua & Moreno-Cruz, Juan, 2019. "Strategic implications of counter-geoengineering: Clash or cooperation?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 153-177.
    4. Emmerling, Johannes & Tavoni, Massimo, 2017. "Quantifying Non-cooperative Climate Engineering," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 266289, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    5. Todd Sandler, 2018. "Collective action and geoengineering," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 105-125, March.
    6. Michael Finus & Francesco Furini, 2022. "Global Climate Governance in the Light of Geoengineering: A Shot in the Dark?," Graz Economics Papers 2022-02, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    7. Todd L. Cherry & Stephan Kroll & David M. McEvoy, 2023. "Climate cooperation with risky solar geoengineering," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(10), pages 1-14, October.
    8. Andrews, Talbot M. & Delton, Andrew W. & Kline, Reuben, 2022. "Anticipating moral hazard undermines climate mitigation in an experimental geoengineering game," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    9. Toby Bolsen & Risa Palm & Russell E. Luke, 2023. "Public response to solar geoengineering: how media frames about stratospheric aerosol injection affect opinions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(8), pages 1-21, August.
    10. Johannes Emmerling & Vassiliki Manoussi & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2016. "Climate Engineering under Deep Uncertainty and Heterogeneity," Working Papers 2016.52, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    11. Paul R. Hindsley & O. Ashton Morgan, 2022. "The Role of Cultural Worldviews in Willingness to Pay for Environmental Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(2), pages 243-269, February.
    12. Hindsley, Paul & McEvoy, David M. & Morgan, O. Ashton, 2020. "Consumer Demand for Ethical Products and the Role of Cultural Worldviews: The Case of Direct-Trade Coffee," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    13. Elspeth Spence & Emily Cox & Nick Pidgeon, 2021. "Exploring cross-national public support for the use of enhanced weathering as a land-based carbon dioxide removal strategy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-18, March.
    14. Juan Moreno-Cruz & Anthony Harding, 2022. "A Unifying Theory of Foreign Intervention in Domestic Climate Policy," CESifo Working Paper Series 10172, CESifo.
    15. Marilou Jobin & Michael Siegrist, 2020. "Support for the Deployment of Climate Engineering: A Comparison of Ten Different Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 1058-1078, May.
    16. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch & Katrin Rehdanz, 2019. "Do climate engineering experts display moral-hazard behaviour?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 231-243, February.
    17. Richard S.J. Tol, 2016. "Distributional Implications of Geoengineering," Working Paper Series 08316, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    18. Kelly Wanser & Sarah J. Doherty & James W. Hurrell & Alex Wong, 2022. "Near-term climate risks and sunlight reflection modification: a roadmap approach for physical sciences research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 174(3), pages 1-20, October.
    19. Richard S.J. Tol, 2016. "Distributional Implications of Geoengineering," Working Paper Series 8316, Department of Economics, University of Sussex.
    20. Beckage, Brian & Lacasse, Katherine & Raimi, Kaitlin T. & Visioni, Daniele, 2023. "Integrating Risk Perception with Climate Models to Understand the Potential Deployment of Solar Radiation Modification to Mitigate Climate Change," RFF Working Paper Series 23-22, Resources for the Future.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:165:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-021-03009-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.