https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524032.2019.1575258
Framing of Geoengineering Affects Support for Climate Change Mitigation Kaitlin T. Raimi ORCID Icon, Alexander Maki ORCID Icon, David Dana & Michael P. Vandenbergh ORCID Icon Pages 300-319 | Received 18 Apr 2018, Accepted 22 Jan 2019, Published online: 25 Mar 2019 Download citation https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1575258 ABSTRACT 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. When geoengineering is framed as a major solution, people worry less about climate change, leading to reduced mitigation support. When framed as disastrous, people perceived geoengineering as riskier, also leading to a decrease in mitigation support. A more moderate framing of geoengineering as a partial solution is less susceptible to moral hazard effects. Overall, results suggest that geoengineering will not lessen political polarization over anthropogenic climate change, and could undercut support for mitigation efforts. Instead, framing geoengineering as a small piece to solving a big puzzle seems to be the best strategy to weaken this potential moral hazard. KEYWORDS: Climate change, geoengineering, moral hazard, mitigation support, risk compensation -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
