Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Putting this differently, it is prudent to have a portfolio of measures
available for the geophysical equivalent of a terminal illness. Unfortu-
nately, many people shy away from serious research on geoengineering.
They fear that considering geoengineering would lead to “moral hazard.”
By this they mean that reliance on geoengineering would take the pres-
sure off the need to reduce CO
2
and other greenhouse-gas emissions.
Moral hazard is present in many government policies, but its force
here is probably exaggerated. Societies take many steps to reduce vul-
nerability that may also increase risk taking. Firefi ghters, central banks,
and ski rescue services all reduce vulnerability to risks and by so doing
may encourage risk taking. But on balance, I would defi nitely prefer to
live in a society that has a central bank and ski rescue services even if
they lead bankers and skiers to increase their risk taking.
So the balance sheet on geoengineering is mixed. A careful weigh-
ing of costs and benefi ts suggests that preparing for geoengineering
would reduce the risks of the most dangerous climatic outcomes. But it
leaves many of the problems unsolved and may produce dangerous side
effects, so I would defi nitely prefer to reduce CO
2
emissions and con-
centrations as the fi rst line of defense. However, we need to understand
the salvage therapy of geoengineering better. A cautious plan of re-
search and experimentation should be drawn up. Just as important is
that nations should consider a treaty that places geoengineering under
international regulation and control to prevent it being used strategi-
cally by individual countries for their own narrow benefi ts.
6
