The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments (IPCC) Special Report on 1.5 °C of global warming is clear. Nearly all pathways that hold global warming well below 2 °C involve carbon removal (IPCC, 2015). In addition, solar geoengineering is being considered as a potential tool to offset warming, especially to limit temperature until negative emissions technologies are sufficiently matured (MacMartin et al., 2018). Despite this, there has been a reluctance to embrace carbon removal and solar geoengineering, partly due to the perception that these technologies represent what is widely termed a “moral hazard”: that geoengineering will prevent people from developing the will to change their personal consumption and push for changes in infrastructure (Robock et al., 2010), erode political will for emissions cuts (Keith, 2007), or otherwise stimulate increased carbon emissions at the social-system level of analysis (Bunzl, 2008). These debates over carbon removal and geoengineering echo earlier ones over climate adaptation. We argue that debates over “moral hazard” in many areas of climate policy are unhelpful and misleading. We also propose an alternative framework for dealing with the tradeoffs that motivate the appeal to “moral hazard,” which we call “risk-response feedback.”

政府间气候变化专门委员会 (IPCC) 关于全球变暖 1.5°C 的特别报告是明确的。几乎所有将全球变暖控制在 2°C 以下的途径都涉及碳去除（IPCC，2015）。此外，太阳能地球工程被认为是抵消变暖的潜在工具，尤其是在负排放技术足够成熟之前限制温度（MacMartin 等，2018）。尽管如此，人们仍不愿接受碳去除和太阳能地球工程，部分原因是人们认为这些技术代表了被广泛称为“道德风险”的东西：地球工程将阻止人们发展改变个人消费和推动基础设施变革（Robock 等，2010），削弱减排的政治意愿（Keith，2007），或以其他方式刺激社会系统分析层面的碳排放增加（Bunzl，2008 年）。这些关于碳去除和地球工程的争论呼应了早期关于气候适应的争论。我们认为，在气候政策的许多领域中关于“道德风险”的辩论是无益和误导的。我们还提出了一个替代框架，用于处理激发诉诸“道德风险”的权衡，我们称之为“风险-反应反馈”。