"Geo-engineering 'turns hearts and minds away from the cause of the climate crisis and inevitably dilutes the urgency with which it must be addressed'."

LINK

Wagner, Gernot; and Daniel Zizzamia (2020): Green Moral Hazards. NYU Wagner Research Paper (8 July 2020). Working draft.

"We here explore green moral hazards throughout American history. We argue that dismissing (solar) geoengineering on moral hazard grounds is often unproductive. Instead, especially those vehemently opposed to the technology should use it as an opportunity to expand the attention paid to the underlying environmental problem in the first place, actively invoking its opposite: ‘inverse moral hazards’."

LINK

"For one, SRM is no “solution.” While CDR directly addresses the root cause of the problem – excess atmospheric carbon dioxide – SRM only does so indirectly. Meanwhile, either form of geoengineering conjures legitimate images of technofixes."

LINK

Raimi, K.; Maki, A.; Dana, D.; Vandenbergh, M. (2019): Framing of Geoengineering Affects Support for Climate Change Mitigation. In: Environmental Communication 13 (3), S. 300–319. DOI: 10.1080/17524032.2019.1575258.

"The growing recognition that climate change mitigation alone will be inadequate has led scientists and policymakers to discuss climate geoengineering. An experiment with a US sample found, contrary to previous research, that reading about geoengineering did not reduce conservatives’ skepticism about the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Moreover, depending on how it is framed, geoengineering can reduce support for mitigation among both conservatives and non-conservatives."

LINK