IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ifwkie/140610.html

Knowledge about aerosol injection does not reduce individual mitigation efforts

Author

Listed:
  • Merk, Christine
  • Pönitzsch, Gerd
  • Rehdanz, Katrin

Abstract

Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is a climate engineering method that is reputed to be very effective in cooling the planet but is also thought to involve major risks and side effects. As a new option in the bid to counter climate change, it has attracted an increasing amount of research and the debate on its potential gained momentum after it was referred to in the 5th IPCC assessment report (IPCC 2013). One major objection to SAI and the research done on it is that it could undermine commitment to the mitigation of greenhouse gases. Policymakers, interest groups or individuals might wrongly perceive SAI as an easy fix for climate change and accordingly reduce their mitigation efforts. This is the first study to provide an empirical evaluation of this claim for individuals. In a large-scale framed field experiment with more than 650 participants, we provide evidence that people do not back-pedal on mitigation when they are told that the climate change problem could be partly addressed via SAI. Instead, we observe that people who have been informed about SAI mitigate more than people who have not. Our data suggest that the increase is driven by a perception of SAI as potential threat.

Suggested Citation

  • Merk, Christine & Pönitzsch, Gerd & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2016. "Knowledge about aerosol injection does not reduce individual mitigation efforts," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 140610, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ifwkie:140610
    DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/140610/1/erl_11_5_054009.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054009?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Britta Clark, 2025. "Solar geoengineering, delay, and addiction," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 178(11), pages 1-14, November.
    2. Joseph E. Aldy & Richard Zeckhauser, 2020. "Three prongs for prudent climate policy," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 87(1), pages 3-29, July.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Adrien Fabre & Gernot Wagner, 2020. "Availability of risky geoengineering can make an ambitious climate mitigation agreement more likely," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-4, December.
    7. Amanda Sie & Steven R. Brechin & Christopher P. Borick, 2025. "Geoengineering prioritization: a study of a proposed expression of mitigation deterrence," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 178(11), pages 1-23, November.
    8. 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.
    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. Oschlies, Andreas & Klepper, Gernot, 2017. "Research for Assessment, not Deployment of Climate Engineering: The German Research Foundation's Priority Program SPP 1689," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 226373, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    11. Victoria Wibeck & Anders Hansson & Jonas Anshelm & Shinichiro Asayama & Lisa Dilling & Pamela M. Feetham & Rachel Hauser & Atsushi Ishii & Masahiro Sugiyama, 2017. "Making sense of climate engineering: a focus group study of lay publics in four countries," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 1-14, November.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming
    • D19 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Other
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:zbw:ifwkie:140610. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iwkiede.html .

    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.