Geoengineering, climate change scepticism and the ‘moral hazard’ argument: an experimental study of UK public perceptions

Abstract

Many commentators have expressed concerns that researching and/or developing geoengineering technologies may undermine support for existing climate policies—the so-called moral hazard argument. This argument plays a central role in policy debates about geoengineering. However, there has not yet been a systematic investigation of how members of the public view the moral hazard argument, or whether it impacts on people's beliefs about geoengineering and climate change. In this paper, we describe an online experiment with a representative sample of the UK public, in which participants read one of two arguments (either endorsing or rejecting the idea that geoengineering poses a moral hazard). The argument endorsing the idea of geoengineering as a moral hazard was perceived as more convincing overall. However, people with more sceptical views and those who endorsed ‘self-enhancing’ values were more likely to agree that the prospect of geoengineering would reduce their motivation to make changes in their own behaviour in response to climate change. The findings suggest that geoengineering is likely to pose a moral hazard for some people more than others, and the implications for engaging the public are discussed.