> when an entity has an incentive to increase its exposure to risk because it does not bear the full costs of that risk This is an experiment. It does not cons

> when an entity has an incentive to increase its exposure to risk because it does not bear the full costs of that risk This is an experiment. It does not constitute a moral hazard. How about, rather than posting a wikipedia page, you explain HOW this is a moral hazard and how shutting down an experiment is the better move? The greater moral hazard is the one where protestors shut down the testing and we are impacted negatively by climate change as a result. We have seen this with nuclear power, where delays in development and rollout of safer nuclear power have led us to our current scenario where coal stations are still being planned and built.