IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v176y2023i10d10.1007_s10584-023-03612-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Climate cooperation with risky solar geoengineering

Author

Listed:
  • Todd L. Cherry

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

  • Stephan Kroll

    (Colorado State University)

  • David M. McEvoy

    (Appalachian State University)

Abstract

Given the lack of progress on climate change mitigation, some scientists have proposed solar geoengineering as a means to manage climate change at least temporarily. One main concern with such a risky technological solution, however, is that it may create a “moral hazard” problem by crowding out efforts to reduce emissions. We investigate the potential for a risky technological solution to crowd out mitigation with theory and experiments. In a collective-risk social dilemma, players strategically act to cooperate when there is an opportunity to deploy a risky technology to help protect themselves from impending damages. In contrast to the moral hazard conjecture, the empirical results suggest that the threat of solar geoengineering can lead to an increase in cooperative behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:176:y:2023:i:10:d:10.1007_s10584-023-03612-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-023-03612-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-023-03612-2
    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/s10584-023-03612-2?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. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    2. Armin Falk & James J. Heckman, 2009. "Lab Experiments are a Major Source of Knowledge in the Social Sciences," Working Papers 200935, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    3. Stephan Kroll & Aric P. Shafran, 2018. "Spatial externalities and risk in interdependent security games," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 237-257, June.
    4. Heutel, Garth & Moreno-Cruz, Juan & Shayegh, Soheil, 2016. "Climate tipping points and solar geoengineering," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 132(PB), pages 19-45.
    5. Moreno-Cruz, Juan B., 2015. "Mitigation and the geoengineering threat," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 248-263.
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    9. 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).
    10. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2008. "Forecasting Risk Attitudes: An Experimental Study Using Actual and Forecast Gamble Choices," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-01, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    11. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.
    12. Scott Barrett, 2014. "Solar Geoengineering’s Brave New World: Thoughts on the Governance of an Unprecedented Technology," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 8(2), pages 249-269.
    13. James Cox & Sam Dinkin & James Swarthout, 2001. "Endogenous Entry and Exit in Common Value Auctions," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(2), pages 163-181, October.
    14. Peter Irvine & Kerry Emanuel & Jie He & Larry W. Horowitz & Gabriel Vecchi & David Keith, 2019. "Halving warming with idealized solar geoengineering moderates key climate hazards," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(4), pages 295-299, April.
    15. Thomas C. Brown & Stephan Kroll, 2017. "Avoiding an uncertain catastrophe: climate change mitigation under risk and wealth heterogeneity," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 141(2), pages 155-166, March.
    16. Sikina Jinnah & Simon Nicholson & David R. Morrow & Zachary Dove & Paul Wapner & Walter Valdivia & Leslie Paul Thiele & Catriona McKinnon & Andrew Light & Myanna Lahsen & Prakash Kashwan & Aarti Gupta, 2019. "Governing Climate Engineering: A Proposal for Immediate Governance of Solar Radiation Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-9, July.
    17. Erik Snowberg & Leeat Yariv, 2021. "Testing the Waters: Behavior across Participant Pools," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(2), pages 687-719, February.
    18. 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)

    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. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    2. Michalis Drouvelis & Johannes Lohse, 2020. "Cognitive abilities and risk taking: the role of preferences," Discussion Papers 20-02, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
    3. 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.
    4. Florian Baumann & Tim Friehe & Pascal Langenbach, 2020. "Fines versus Damages: Experimental Evidence on Care Investments," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2020_08, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, revised Mar 2024.
    5. Feltovich, Nick & Grossman, Philip J., 2015. "How does the effect of pre-play suggestions vary with group size? Experimental evidence from a threshold public-good game," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 263-280.
    6. Kyung Hwan Baik & Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Abhijit Ramalingam, 2021. "Group size and matching protocol in contests," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(4), pages 1716-1736, November.
    7. Jan-Erik Loennqvist & Markku Verkasalo & Gari Walkowitz & Philipp C. Wichardt, 2011. "Measuring Individual Risk Attitudes in the Lab: Task or Ask? An Empirical Comparison," Cologne Graduate School Working Paper Series 02-03, Cologne Graduate School in Management, Economics and Social Sciences.
    8. Jeannette Brosig‐Koch & Burkhard Hehenkamp & Johanna Kokot, 2017. "The effects of competition on medical service provision," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 6-20, December.
    9. András Molnár & Christophe Heintz, 2016. "Beliefs About People’s Prosociality Eliciting predictions in dictator games," CEU Working Papers 2016_1, Department of Economics, Central European University.
    10. Dariel, Aurelie & Riedl, Arno & Siegenthaler, Simon, 2021. "Referral hiring and wage formation in a market with adverse selection," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 109-130.
    11. Anna Bayona & Oana Peia & Razvan Vlahu, 2023. "Credit Ratings and Investments," Working Papers 776, DNB.
    12. Fehr, Dietmar & Rau, Hannes & Trautmann, Stefan T. & Xu, Yilong, 2020. "Inequality, fairness and social capital," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    13. Engelmann, Dirk & Janeba, Eckhard & Mechtenberg, Lydia & Wehrhöfer, Nils, 2023. "Preferences over taxation of high-income individuals: Evidence from a survey experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    14. Waichman, Israel & Requate, Till & Karde, Markus & Milinski, Manfred, 2021. "Challenging conventional wisdom: Experimental evidence on heterogeneity and coordination in avoiding a collective catastrophic event," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    15. Hermann, Daniel & Mußhoff, Oliver & Rau, Holger A., 2019. "The disposition effect when deciding on behalf of others," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    16. Detlefsen, Lena & Friedl, Andreas & Lima de Miranda, Katharina & Schmidt, Ulrich & Sutter, Matthias, 2018. "Are Economic Preferences Shaped by the Family Context? The Impact of Birth Order and Siblings' Sex Composition on Economic Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 11949, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Bayona, Anna & Peia, Oana, 2022. "Financial contagion and the wealth effect: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 1184-1202.
    18. Choo, C.Y. Lawrence & Fonseca, Miguel A. & Myles, Gareth D., 2016. "Do students behave like real taxpayers in the lab? Evidence from a real effort tax compliance experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 102-114.
    19. Martinangeli, Andrea F.M. & Martinsson, Peter, 2020. "We, the rich: Inequality, identity and cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 249-266.
    20. Giuseppe Attanasi & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Valentina Rotondi & Daria Vigani, 2018. "Lottery- and survey-based risk attitudes linked through a multichoice elicitation task," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 341-372, May.

    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:176:y:2023:i:10:d:10.1007_s10584-023-03612-2. 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.