...
首页> 外文期刊>Climate Policy >Do climate engineering experts display moral-hazard behaviour?
【24h】

Do climate engineering experts display moral-hazard behaviour?

机译:气候工程专家是否表现出道德风险行为?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Discourse analyses and expert interviews about climate engineering (CE) report high levels of reflectivity about the technologies' risks and challenges, implying that CE experts are unlikely to display moral hazard behaviour, i.e. a reduced focus on mitigation. This has, however, not been empirically tested. Within CE experts we distinguish between experts for radiation management (RM) and for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and analyse whether RM and CDR experts display moral hazard behaviour. For RM experts, we furthermore look at whether they agree to laboratory and field research, and how they perceive the risks and benefits of one specific RM method, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI). Analyzing experts' preferences for climate-policy options, we do not find a reduction of the mitigation budget, i.e. moral hazard, for RM or CDR experts compared to climate-change experts who are neither experts for RM nor for CDR. In particular, the budget shares earmarked for RM are low. The perceptions of risks and benefits of SAI are similar for RM and climate-change experts. Despite the difference in knowledge and expertise, experts and laypersons share an understanding of the benefits, while their perceptions of the risks differ: experts perceive the risks to be larger. Key policy insights Experts surveyed all prioritize mitigation over carbon dioxide removal and in particular radiation management. In the views of the experts, SAI is not a viable climate policy option within the next 25 years, and potentially beyond, as global field-testing (which would be a precondition for long-term deployment) is widely rejected. In the case of SAI, greater knowledge leads to increased awareness of the uncertainty and complexity involved. Policy-makers need to be aware of this relationship and the potential misconceptions among laypersons with limited knowledge, and should follow the guidelines about communicating risks and uncertainties of CE that experts have been advised to follow.
机译:话语分析和有关气候工程(CE)的专家访谈都报告了对技术风险和挑战的高度反思,这意味着CE专家不太可能表现出道德风险行为,即减少对缓解的关注。但是,这还没有经过经验检验。在CE专家内部,我们区分辐射管理(RM)和二氧化碳清除(CDR)专家,并分析RM和CDR专家是否表现出道德风险行为。对于RM专家,我们还将研究他们是否同意实验室和现场研究,以及他们如何看待一种特定的RM方法(平流层气雾剂注射(SAI))的风险和收益。通过分析专家对气候政策选择的偏好,我们发现,与既不是RM专家也不是CDR专家的气候变化专家相比,RM或CDR专家的缓解预算(即道德风险)并未减少。特别是,指定用于RM的预算份额较低。 RM和气候变化专家对SAI的风险和收益的看法相似。尽管知识和专业知识有所不同,但是专家和非专业人士对收益有共同的了解,而他们对风险的看法却不同:专家认为风险更大。重要政策见解专家们对所有缓解措施的优先次序均优先于二氧化碳的清除,尤其是辐射管理。专家们认为,SAI在未来25年乃至更远的时间内都不是可行的气候政策选择,因为全球实地测试(这将是长期部署的前提)已被广泛拒绝。就SAI而言,更多的知识会导致人们对所涉及的不确定性和复杂性有了更多的了解。决策者需要意识到这种关系以及知识有限的非专业人士之间的潜在误解,并应遵循有关专家建议遵循的有关CE风险和不确定性交流的准则。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号