This presentation challenges from three vantages the belief that climate engineering (CE) research would hinder greenhouse gas reductions. First, the empirical evidence of such moral hazard or risk compensation (MH-RC) in general behavior is inconclusive, and the limited empirical evidence of this in the case of CE indicates that a reverse MH-RC may be the case. Second, a basic microeconomic model shows that to whatever extent CE might hinder emissions reductions, this could be both rational and beneficial. It also shows that CE could actually cause an increase in emissions reductions. Third, existing policies for other cases seek to manage moral hazard and to promote risk compensation. In the case of CE, there may be little that can be done in terms of policy to reduce any harmful MH-RC that might exist. The presentation concludes these concerns should not play a central role in developing CE policy.
