IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ifwkie/140610.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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 (IfW Kiel).
    • 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:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Löschel, Andreas & Sturm, Bodo & Uehleke, Reinhard, 2013. "Revealed preferences for climate protection when the purely individual perspective is relaxed: Evidence from a framed field experiment," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-006, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    2. Stephen H. Schneider, 2001. "Earth systems engineering and management," Nature, Nature, vol. 409(6818), pages 417-420, January.
    3. Nick Pidgeon & Karen Parkhill & Adam Corner & Naomi Vaughan, 2013. "Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(5), pages 451-457, May.
    4. Johannes Diederich & Timo Goeschl, 2014. "Willingness to Pay for Voluntary Climate Action and Its Determinants: Field-Experimental Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(3), pages 405-429, March.
    5. David E. Winickoff & Jane A. Flegal & Asfawossen Asrat, 2015. "Engaging the Global South on climate engineering research," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(7), pages 627-634, July.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    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. 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).
    8. 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 (IfW Kiel).
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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. Andreas Löschel & Dirk Rübbelke, 2014. "On the Voluntary Provision of International Public Goods," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 81(322), pages 195-204, April.
    2. Wylie A. Carr & Laurie Yung, 2018. "Perceptions of climate engineering in the South Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, and North American Arctic," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 119-132, March.
    3. Andreas Loschel & Michael Price & Laura Razzolini & Madeline Werthschulte, 2020. "Negative income shocks and the support of environmental policies - Insights from the COVID-19 pandemic," Framed Field Experiments 00710, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Jing Shi & Michael Siegrist & Joseph Arvai, 2017. "Beliefs and values explain international differences in perception of solar radiation management: insights from a cross-country survey," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 531-544, June.
    7. Lohse, Johannes & Goeschl, Timo & Diederich , Johannes, 2014. "Giving is a question of time: Response times and contributions to a real world public good," Working Papers 0566, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    8. Helena Fornwagner & Oliver P. Hauser, 2022. "Climate Action for (My) Children," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(1), pages 95-130, January.
    9. Todd Sandler, 2018. "Collective action and geoengineering," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 105-125, March.
    10. Onur Sapci & Aaron Wood & Jason Shogren & Jolene Green, 2016. "Can verifiable information cut through the noise about climate protection? An experimental auction test," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 134(1), pages 87-99, January.
    11. Alberini, Anna & Ščasný, Milan & Bigano, Andrea, 2018. "Policy- v. individual heterogeneity in the benefits of climate change mitigation: Evidence from a stated-preference survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 565-575.
    12. Andreas Löschel & Jiansuo Pei & Ran Wang & Bodo Sturm & Wolfgang Buchholz & Zhongxiu Zhao, 2021. "The Demand for Global and Local Environmental Protection: Experimental Evidence from Climate Change Mitigation in Beijing," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 97(1), pages 137-154.
    13. Diederich, Johannes & Epperson, Raphael & Goeschl, Timo, 2021. "How to Design the Ask? Funding Units vs. Giving Money," Working Papers 0698, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    14. Jane A. Flegal & Aarti Gupta, 2018. "Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? Scrutinizing emerging expert visions of equity," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 45-61, February.
    15. Kesternich, Martin & Löschel, Andreas & Römer, Daniel, 2016. "The long-term impact of matching and rebate subsidies when public goods are impure: Field experimental evidence from the carbon offsetting market," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 70-78.
    16. Johannes Lohse & Timo Goeschl & Johannes H. Diederich, 2017. "Giving is a Question of Time: Response Times and Contributions to an Environmental Public Good," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(3), pages 455-477, July.
    17. Joseph Anthony L. Reyes, 2021. "How Different Are the Nordics? Unravelling the Willingness to Make Economic Sacrifices for the Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-31, January.
    18. Feldhaus, Christoph & Gleue, Marvin & Löschel, Andreas & Werner, Peter, 2022. "Co-benefits motivate individual donations to mitigate climate change," Research Memorandum 004, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    19. Onur Sapci & Ayse Sapci, 2020. "Consumer Perception of Food Expiration Labels: “Sell By” Versus “Expires On”," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 46(4), pages 673-689, October.
    20. Sturm, Bodo & Pei, Jiansuo & Wang, Ran & Löschel, Andreas & Zhao, Zhongxiu, 2019. "Conditional cooperation in case of a global public good – Experimental evidence from climate change mitigation in Beijing," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 1-1.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    climate engineering; stratospheric aerosol injection; risk compensation; climate change mitigation; moral hazard;
    All these 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.

    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: 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.