Geoengineering, Moral Hazard, and Disrespect

Scientists and policymakers are increasingly exploring solar geoengineering as a tool for combatting anthropogenic climate change. Yet these technologies have drawn intense ethical criticism. One of the most influential critiques—the “moral hazard” objection—holds that pursuing solar geoengineering risks undercutting mitigation efforts; and that, as a result, governments should halt the development of solar geoengineering. This paper argues that the moral hazard objection faces a dilemma: either the proposed solution to the moral hazard effect (i.e., stifling geoengineering) is unnecessary, or it expresses a morally troubling form of disrespect. Articulating this dilemma serves three purposes. It shows, first, that the moral hazard objection is substantially more difficult to vindicate than it initially appears. Second, it clarifies what would need to be shown, empirically, to overcome this ethical hurdle. Finally, and crucially, it sheds light, more broadly, on what it means to respect people’s agency when conveying policy-relevant scientific information.