What do we mean when we talk about the moral hazard of geoengineering?

Geoengineering technologies – deliberate, large-scale interventions to alter the Earth's climate – present an opportunity to ameliorate the effects of climate change; an opportunity policy-makers are beginning to consider. However, the safety and efficacy of geoengineering strategies is uncertain, and there is concern advancing these technologies engenders a range of non-physical risks; in particular, moral hazard. In economics, moral hazard occurs when insured agents no longer bear the full consequences of risk-taking, and consequentially increase their exposure to risk. However, while certainly analogous, the way the term is used in the geoengineering literature is ambiguous, describing a patchwork of mechanisms of action, hazardous behaviours, and undesirable outcomes. Importantly, as moral hazard concerns are likely to inform policy-making and regulatory responses to these technologies, this unclear specification could impede scholarly, policy, and public debate. This article charts this ambiguity, documenting the range of meanings of moral hazard in the geoengineering literature. Results suggest moral hazard is used at least eight different ways in the literature, with the three most common frames being Insurance, Unwilling and Avoid. With this, we suggest that those articulating moral hazard concerns about geoengineering technologies work to articulate as clearly as possible what the problem actually is.