Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

High-risk high-reward investments to mitigate climate change


Some technologies, such as solar or wind power, create certain but relatively small reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Others, such as carbon sequestration devices, have larger potential upsides, but a greater possibility of failure. Here we show using economic games that people will invest in high-risk high-reward technologies when more certain options will not be sufficient. Groups of players had to contribute enough to avoid a simulated climate change disaster. Players could defect, make a certain contribution or make a risky contribution with a high potential gain. Across four studies using both laboratory (n = 296 and n = 297) and online (n = 501 and n = 499) samples, we found that more players made riskier contributions when necessary targets could not be met otherwise, regardless of the magnitude of potential losses. These results suggest that individuals are willing to invest in risky technology when it is necessary to mitigate climate change.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Schematic representation of the game structure.
Fig. 2: Risky contribution decisions.
Fig. 3: Interrupted regression results.
Fig. 4: Percentage of groups that successfully meet the threshold.


  1. 1.

    Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. & Stern, P. C. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302, 1907–1912 (2003).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer L. A.) (IPCC, 2015).

  3. 3.

    IPCC Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  4. 4.

    Hafner-Burton, E. M., LeVeck, B. L., Victor, D. G. & Fowler, J. H. Decision maker preferences for international legal cooperation. Int. Organ. 4, 845–876 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Smith, N. C. in The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (eds Crane, A. et al.) Ch. 12 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2008).

  6. 6.

    Tavoni, A., Dannenberg, A., Kallis, G. & Löschel, A. Inequality, communication, and the avoidance of disastrous climate change in a public goods game. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 11825–11829 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Milinski, M., Sommerfeld, R. D., Krambeck, H.-J., Reed, F. A. & Marotzke, J. The collective-risk social dilemma and the prevention of simulated dangerous climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 2291–2294 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Barrett, S. & Dannenberg, A. Climate negotiations under scientific uncertainty. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 17372–17376 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Wilson, R. K. The contribution of behavioral economics to political science. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 14, 201–223 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Burton-Chellew, M. N., May, R. M. & West, S. A. Combined inequality in wealth and risk leads to disaster in the climate change game. Climatic Change 120, 815–830 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Vasconcelos, V. V., Santos, F. C., Pacheco, J. M. & Levin, S. A. Climate policies under wealth inequality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 2212–2216 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Milinski, M., Röhl, T. & Marotzke, J. Cooperative interaction of rich and poor can be catalyzed by intermediate climate targets. Climatic Change 109, 807–814 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Del Ponte, A., Delton, A. W., Kline, R., & Seltzer, N. A. Passing it along: experiments on creating the negative externalities of climate change. J. Polit. 79, 1444–1448 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Jacquet, J. et al. Intra- and intergenerational discounting in the climate game. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 1025–1028 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Milinski, M., Hilbe, C., Semmann, D., Sommerfeld, R. & Marotzke, J. Humans choose representatives who enforce cooperation in social dilemmas through extortion. Nat. Commun. 7, 10915 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Mishra, S., Barclay, P. & Sparks, A. The relative state model: integrating need-based and ability-based pathways to risk-taking. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 21, 176–198 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Rode, C., Cosmides, L., Hell, W. & Tooby, J. When and why do people avoid unknown probabilities in decisions under uncertainty? Testing some predictions from optimal foraging theory. Cognition 72, 269–304 (1999).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Wang, X. T. Domain-specific rationality in human choices: violations of utility axioms and social contexts. Cognition 60, 31–63 (1996).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Stephens, D. & Krebs, J. Foraging Theory (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NY, 1986).

  20. 20.

    Amir, O., Rand, D. G. & Gal, Y. K. Economic games on the internet: the effect of $1 stakes. PLoS ONE 7, e31461 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Mishra, S. Decision-making under risk. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 18, 280–307 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Simonsohn, U. Two-lines: a valid alternative to the invalid testing of U-shaped relationships with quadratic regressions. SSRN (2018).

  23. 23.

    Clifford, S. & Jerit, J. Is there a cost to convenience? An experimental comparison of data quality in laboratory and online studies. J. Exp. Polit. Sci. 1, 120–131 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Leiserowitz, A. Climate Change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change 77, 45–72 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    O’Connor, R. E., Bord, R. J. & Fisher, A. Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk. Anal. 19, 461–471 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Hurly, A. T. The twin threshold model: risk-intermediate foraging by rufous hummingbirds, Selasphorus rufus. Anim. Behav. 66, 751–761 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Caraco, T., Martindale, S. & Whittam, T. S. An empirical demonstration of risk-sensitive foraging preferences. Anim. Behav. 28, 820–830 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Eckel, C. C. & Grossman, P. J. Sex differences and statistical stereotyping in attitudes toward financial risk. Evol. Hum. Behav. 23, 281–295 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Paolacci, G., Chandler, J. & Ipeirotis, P. G. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 5, 411–419 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank A. Levine for helpful feedback and P. W. Kraft for his assistance with the analysis. Funding was provided by the Center for Behavioral Political Economy at Stony Brook University as well as the Research Fund for Faculty in the Arts, Humanities, and lettered Social Sciences at Stony Brook University.

Author information




T.M.A., A.W.D. and R.K. each contributed to the study design, implementation, writing and revisions of the paper. T.M.A. completed the analysis of the results.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Talbot M. Andrews.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figures 1–4, Supplementary Tables 1–12, Supplementary Results, Supplementary Methods

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Andrews, T.M., Delton, A.W. & Kline, R. High-risk high-reward investments to mitigate climate change. Nature Clim Change 8, 890–894 (2018).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing