26.05.2021

# New Publications

0 Comments

Jebari, Joseph; et al. (2021): From Moral Hazard to Risk-Response Feedback

Jebari, Joseph; Andrews, Talbot M.; Aquila, Valentina; Beckage, Brian; Belaia, Mariia; Clifford, Maggie et al. (2021): From Moral Hazard to Risk-Response Feedback. In Climate Risk Management, p. 100324. DOI: 10.1016/j.crm.2021.100324.

"We argue that debates over “moral hazard” in response to carbon removal and geoengineering are unhelpful and misleading. We also propose an alternative framework for dealing with the tradeoffs that motivate the appeal to “moral hazard,” which we call “risk-response feedback.”"

LINK


Read more »

10.05.2021

# Media

0 Comments

Blog: climateworks: New EU climate law delivers innovative policy framework to advance carbon removal and avoid moral hazard

"As world governments grapple with the need for carbon dioxide removal — a set of climate tools deemed necessary by the U.S. Special Climate Envoy John Kerry — the EU approach to policy design offers important lessons for other governments looking to responsibly research and deploy carbon dioxide removal."

LINK


Read more »

12.04.2021

# Media

0 Comments

Golem: Experiment to dim the sum cancelled in Sweden (German)

German article about the cancelled SCoPEx experiment in Sweden.

LINK


Read more »

01.03.2021

# New Publications

0 Comments

Murray, Emily G.; et al. (2021): Will Individual Actions Do the Trick? Comparing Climate Change Mitigation through Geoengineering versus Reduced Vehicle Emissions

Murray, Emily G.; DiGiorgio, Andrea L. (2021): Will Individual Actions Do the Trick? Comparing Climate Change Mitigation through Geoengineering versus Reduced Vehicle Emissions. In Earth’s Future. DOI: 10.1029/2020EF001734.

"This paper considers how one individual action (reducing carbon dioxide emissions from gasoline‐fueled private vehicles), when adopted at a global scale, may have an effect that is comparable to the effects of geoengineering. This paper also argues that the role of geoengineering as a safeguard against climate change may be encouraging complacency and reducing motivation for individual action."

LINK


Read more »

22.10.2020

# Media

0 Comments

The Ecologist: Hacking the earth?

"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


Read more »

20.07.2020

# Media

0 Comments

Blog post: Hack the Planet: Pulling the climate switch (Anant Kapoor)

"Much like the trolley problem, geoengineering would have a massive accountability dilemma. Any positive action that still leads to calamities will come under heavy scrutiny, so each new disaster would easily be blamed on any prior meddling."

LINK


Read more »

09.07.2020

# New Publications

0 Comments

Wagner, Gernot; and Daniel Zizzamia (2020): Green Moral Hazards

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


Read more »

22.04.2020

# Media

0 Comments

Phys.org: Why relying on new technology won't save the planet

"Overreliance on promises of new technology to solve climate change is enabling delay, say researchers from Lancaster University."

LINK


Read more »

12.01.2020

# Political Papers

0 Comments

C2G Guest Post by Gernot Wagner and Daniel Zizzamia: Green Moral Hazards

"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


Read more »

11.12.2019

# Media

0 Comments

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist: Geoengineering is no climate fix. But calling it a moral hazard could be counterproductive

"Many experts are already worried that public discussion of geoengineering might dissuade policy makers from making harder but more substantial choices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is commonly called the “moral hazard” problem, and it has become a major argument against even pursuing further research into geoengineering technologies."

LINK


Read more »