Cited by 96Climate Change and GeoengineeringClimate Change Policy and EconomicsSustainability and Climate Change Governance

A critical examination of the climate engineering moral hazard and risk compensation concern

Open access
Reynolds, Jesse·2015·The Anthropocene Review

Abstract

The widespread concern that research into and potential implementation of climate engineering would reduce mitigation and adaptation is critically examined. First, empirical evidence of such moral hazard or risk compensation in general is inconclusive, and the empirical evidence to date in the case of climate engineering indicates that the reverse may occur. Second, basic economics of substitutes shows that reducing mitigation in response to climate engineering implementation could provide net benefits to humans and the environment, and that climate engineering might theoretically increase mitigation through strong income effects. Third, existing policies strive to promote other technologies and measures, including climate adaptation, which induce analogous risk-compensating behaviours. If the goal of climate policy is to minimize climate risks, this concern should not be grounds for restricting or prohibiting climate engineering research. Three potential means for this concern to manifest in genuinely deleterious ways, as well as policy options to reduce these effects, are identified.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2053019614554304

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • SAI may be used to justify the continued existence of fossil fuel industries.

    “SAI may also be used to justify the continued existence of fossil fuel industries. This is a potential adverse incentive core to the 'moral hazard' problem (Reynolds, 2015; Lockley and Coffman, 2016).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 88 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reynolds, J.
Affiliations
Tilburg University (NL)
Corresponding author
Reynolds, Jesse
Venue
The Anthropocene Review
Published
2014-10-08
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
174-191
ISSN
  • 2053-0196 (ISSN-L)
  • 2053-020X
OpenAlex
W2136314398
Cited by
96
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 3
FWCI
4.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Anthropocene Review (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • Research portal (Tilburg University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
Keywords
geoengineering, moral hazard, risk compensation, climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, income effects, climate policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review