Editing IPCC:AR6/SR15/Chapter-4 (section)

==== 4.3.8.3 Social acceptability and ethics ====

<div id="section-4-3-8-3-block-1"></div>

Ethical questions around SRM include those of international responsibilities for implementation, financing, compensation for negative effects, the procedural justice questions of who is involved in decisions, privatization and patenting, welfare, informed consent by affected publics, intergenerational ethics (because SRM requires sustained action in order to avoid termination hazards), and the so-called ‘moral hazard’ (Burns, 2011; Whyte, 2012; Gardiner, 2013; Lin, 2013; Buck et al., 2014; Klepper and Rickels, 2014; Morrow, 2014; Wong, 2014; Reynolds, 2015; Lockley and Coffman, 2016; McLaren, 2016; Suarez and van Aalst, 2017; Reynolds et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r770|770]]</sup> . The literature shows ''low agreement'' on whether SRM research and deployment may lead policy-makers to reduce mitigation efforts and thus imply a moral hazard (Linnér and Wibeck, 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r771|771]]</sup> . SRM might motivate individuals (as opposed to policymakers) to reduce their GHG emissions, but even a subtle difference in the articulation of information about SRM can influence subsequent judgements of favourability (Merk et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r772|772]]</sup> . The argument that SRM research increases the likelihood of deployment (the ‘slippery slope’ argument), is also made (Quaas et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r773|773]]</sup> , but some also found an opposite effect (Bellamy and Healey, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r774|774]]</sup> .

Unequal representation and deliberate exclusion are plausible in decision-making on SRM, given diverging regional interests and the anticipated low resource requirements to deploy SRM (Ricke et al., 2013) <sup>[[#fn:r775|775]]</sup> . Whyte (2012) <sup>[[#fn:r776|776]]</sup> argues that the concerns, sovereignties, and experiences of indigenous peoples may particularly be at risk.

The general public can be characterized as oblivious to and worried about SRM (Carr et al., 2013; Parkhill et al., 2013; Wibeck et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r777|777]]</sup> . An emerging literature discusses public perception of SRM, showing a lack of knowledge and unstable  opinions (Scheer and Renn, 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r778|778]]</sup> . The perception of controllability affects legitimacy and public acceptability of SRM experiments (Bellamy et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r779|779]]</sup> . In Germany, laboratory work on SRM is generally approved of, field research much less so, and immediate deployment is largely rejected (Merk et al., 2015; Braun et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r780|780]]</sup> . Various factors could explain variations in the degree of rejection of SRM between Canada, China, Germany, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States (Visschers et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r781|781]]</sup> .

<div id="section-4-3-8-3-block-2" class="box"></div>

<span id="cross-chapter-box-10-solar-radiation-modification-in-the-context-of-1.5c-mitigation-pathways"></span>