Scopus记录号: 2-s2.0-85049826076
论文题名: Do climate engineering experts display moral-hazard behaviour?
作者: Merk C. ; Pönitzsch G. ; Rehdanz K.
刊名: Climate Policy
ISSN: 14693062
出版年: 2019
卷: 19, 期: 2 起始页码: 231
结束页码: 243
语种: 英语
英文关键词: climate engineering
; expert perception
; geoengineering
; moral hazard
; risk perception
; Stratospheric Aerosol injection (SAI)
Scopus关键词: aerosol
; climate change
; environmental policy
; mitigation
; risk perception
; stratosphere
英文摘要: Discourse analyses and expert interviews about climate engineering (CE) report high levels of reflectivity about the technologies’ risks and challenges, implying that CE experts are unlikely to display moral hazard behaviour, i.e. a reduced focus on mitigation. This has, however, not been empirically tested. Within CE experts we distinguish between experts for radiation management (RM) and for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and analyse whether RM and CDR experts display moral hazard behaviour. For RM experts, we furthermore look at whether they agree to laboratory and field research, and how they perceive the risks and benefits of one specific RM method, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI). Analyzing experts’ preferences for climate-policy options, we do not find a reduction of the mitigation budget, i.e. moral hazard, for RM or CDR experts compared to climate-change experts who are neither experts for RM nor for CDR. In particular, the budget shares earmarked for RM are low. The perceptions of risks and benefits of SAI are similar for RM and climate-change experts. Despite the difference in knowledge and expertise, experts and laypersons share an understanding of the benefits, while their perceptions of the risks differ: experts perceive the risks to be larger. Key policy insights Experts surveyed all prioritize mitigation over carbon dioxide removal and in particular radiation management. In the views of the experts, SAI is not a viable climate policy option within the next 25 years, and potentially beyond, as global field-testing (which would be a precondition for long-term deployment) is widely rejected. In the case of SAI, greater knowledge leads to increased awareness of the uncertainty and complexity involved. Policy-makers need to be aware of this relationship and the potential misconceptions among laypersons with limited knowledge, and should follow the guidelines about communicating risks and uncertainties of CE that experts have been advised to follow. © 2018, © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. 资源类型: 期刊论文
标识符: http://119.78.100.158/handle/2HF3EXSE/122586
Appears in Collections: 气候变化事实与影响
There are no files associated with this item.
作者单位: Research Area The Environment and Natural Resources, Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Kiel, Germany; Alfred-Weber-Institute for Economics, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany; Institute for Regional Science, Kiel University, Environmental and Resource Economics, Kiel, Germany
Recommended Citation:
Merk C.,Pönitzsch G.,Rehdanz K.. Do climate engineering experts display moral-hazard behaviour?[J]. Climate Policy,2019-01-01,19(2)