In addition to the moral hazard issue, this study also presents evidence suggesting that discussions of geoengineering can have a depolarizing effect on the wider climate change debate. In essence, the argument is that geoengineering doesn't carry the same amount of cultural/political baggage as other, more charged aspects of the climate debate (for example, implicit anti-capitalism), and so allows for a less intense, more deliberative focus on the facts. The authors point out that this doesn't necessarily lead to greater support for geoengineering, just a more considered debate.
Josh Horton On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:52:25 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: > > Dan Kahan seeks prepublication comments of the folloing paper (abs > below): http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1981907# > > This is the 3rd or 4th study I've seen (including my own) which found > negative moral hazard. There have been no findings of positive moral > hazard in any study of which I'm aware. > > Dan works on the Yale cultural cognition project > http://www.culturalcognition.net/ Please note his email, cc and > dan....@yale.edu <javascript:> for comments. > > Thanks > > A > > Abstract: > We conducted a two-nation study (United States, n = 1500; England, n = > 1500) to test a novel theory of science communication. The cultural > cognition thesis posits that individuals make extensive reliance on > cultural meanings in forming perceptions of risk. The logic of the > cultural cognition thesis suggests the potential value of a > distinctive two-channel science communication strategy that combines > information content (“Channel 1”) with cultural meanings (“Channel 2”) > selected to promote open-minded assessment of information across > diverse communities. In the study, scientific information content on > climate change was held constant while the cultural meaning of that > information was experimentally manipulated. Consistent with the study > hypotheses, we found that making citizens aware of the potential > contribution of geoengineering as a supplement to restriction of CO2 > emissions helps to offset cultural polarization over the validity of > climate-change science. We also tested the hypothesis, derived from > competing models of science communication, that exposure to > information on geoengineering would provoke discounting of > climate-change risks generally. Contrary to this hypothesis, we found > that subjects exposed to information about geoengineering were > slightly more concerned about climate change risks than those assigned > to a control condition. > > Number of Pages in PDF File: 41 > > Keywords: climate change, geoengineering, cultural cognition, risk > perception > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/WY24Zt6j0NQJ. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
