气候变化领域集成服务门户(CCPortal): Do climate engineering experts display moral-hazard behaviour?

CCPortal

DOI	10.1080/14693062.2018.1494534
	Do climate engineering experts display moral-hazard behaviour?
	Merk C.; Pönitzsch G.; Rehdanz K.
发表日期	2019
ISSN	14693062
起始页码	231
结束页码	243
卷号	19 期号:2
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.
英文关键词	climate engineering; expert perception; geoengineering; moral hazard; risk perception; Stratospheric Aerosol injection (SAI)
语种	英语
scopus关键词	aerosol; climate change; environmental policy; mitigation; risk perception; stratosphere
来源期刊	Climate Policy
文献类型	期刊论文
条目标识符	http://gcip.llas.ac.cn/handle/2XKMVOVA/153429
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
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714	Merk C.,Pönitzsch G.,Rehdanz K.. Do climate engineering experts display moral-hazard behaviour?[J],2019,19(2).
APA	Merk C.,Pönitzsch G.,&Rehdanz K..(2019).Do climate engineering experts display moral-hazard behaviour?.Climate Policy,19(2).
MLA	Merk C.,et al."Do climate engineering experts display moral-hazard behaviour?".Climate Policy 19.2(2019).