IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v160y2020i2d10.1007_s10584-020-02706-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The public remain uninformed and wary of climate engineering

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel P. Carlisle

    (Massey University)

  • Pamela M. Feetham

    (Massey University)

  • Malcolm J. Wright

    (Massey University
    University of South Australia)

  • Damon A. H. Teagle

    (University of Southampton)

Abstract

International CO2 emissions reduction commitments are insufficient to avert damaging global warming and imperil a sustainable future. Climate engineering approaches are increasingly proposed as near-term intervention strategies, but deployment of these controversial techniques will require careful engagement with and the support of the public. New quantitative measurements of public perceptions for six climate engineering approaches show that the public of the United Kingdom (UK), United States (US), Australia (AU) and New Zealand (NZ) continue to have little knowledge of climate engineering. All approaches are regarded unfavourably, albeit less so for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) than solar radiation management (SRM). Knowledge and perceptions are remarkably similar between countries although UK and US respondents are more favourable towards SRM and UK respondents are more favourable towards CDR. Stratospheric aerosol injection is the most negatively perceived approach. Support for small-scale trials is also higher for CDR approaches than SRM. Statistical analyses yield mixed relationships between perceptions of climate engineering and age, political affiliation and pro-ecological views. Thus far, attempts to engage the public with climate engineering have seen little change over time and consequently, there is growing urgency to facilitate careful citizen deliberation using objective and instructive information about climate engineering.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel P. Carlisle & Pamela M. Feetham & Malcolm J. Wright & Damon A. H. Teagle, 2020. "The public remain uninformed and wary of climate engineering," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 303-322, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:160:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s10584-020-02706-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-020-02706-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-020-02706-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-020-02706-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rob Bellamy & Javier Lezaun & James Palmer, 2019. "Perceptions of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in different policy scenarios," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Frank Biermann & Ina Möller, 2019. "Rich man’s solution? Climate engineering discourses and the marginalization of the Global South," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 151-167, April.
    3. Lomax, Guy & Workman, Mark & Lenton, Timothy & Shah, Nilay, 2015. "Reframing the policy approach to greenhouse gas removal technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 125-136.
    4. Jeff Tollefson, 2018. "First sun-dimming experiment will test a way to cool Earth," Nature, Nature, vol. 563(7733), pages 613-615, November.
    5. Romaniuk, Jenni, 2013. "Modeling mental market share," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 188-195.
    6. Peter Irvine & Kerry Emanuel & Jie He & Larry W. Horowitz & Gabriel Vecchi & David Keith, 2019. "Halving warming with idealized solar geoengineering moderates key climate hazards," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(4), pages 295-299, April.
    7. Steve Rayner & Clare Heyward & Tim Kruger & Nick Pidgeon & Catherine Redgwell & Julian Savulescu, 2013. "The Oxford Principles," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 499-512, December.
    8. David E. Winickoff & Jane A. Flegal & Asfawossen Asrat, 2015. "Engaging the Global South on climate engineering research," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(7), pages 627-634, July.
    9. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch, 2017. "The Role of Affect in Attitude Formation toward New Technologies: The Case of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2289-2304, December.
    10. Malcolm J. Wright & Damon A. H. Teagle & Pamela M. Feetham, 2014. "A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 4(2), pages 106-110, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elspeth Spence & Emily Cox & Nick Pidgeon, 2021. "Exploring cross-national public support for the use of enhanced weathering as a land-based carbon dioxide removal strategy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Merk, Christine & Liebe, Ulf & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2023. "German citizens’ preference for domestic carbon dioxide removal by afforestation is incompatible with national removal potential," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 270884, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    3. Jesse L. Reynolds, 2021. "Is solar geoengineering ungovernable? A critical assessment of governance challenges identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), March.
    4. Toby Bolsen & Risa Palm & Russell E. Luke, 2023. "Public response to solar geoengineering: how media frames about stratospheric aerosol injection affect opinions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(8), pages 1-21, August.
    5. Beckage, Brian & Lacasse, Katherine & Raimi, Kaitlin T. & Visioni, Daniele, 2023. "Integrating Risk Perception with Climate Models to Understand the Potential Deployment of Solar Radiation Modification to Mitigate Climate Change," RFF Working Paper Series 23-22, Resources for the Future.
    6. Chad M. Baum & Livia Fritz & Sean Low & Benjamin K. Sovacool, 2024. "Public perceptions and support of climate intervention technologies across the Global North and Global South," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    7. Todd L. Cherry & Steffen Kallbekken & Stephan Kroll & David M. McEvoy, 2021. "Does solar geoengineering crowd out climate change mitigation efforts? Evidence from a stated preference referendum on a carbon tax," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-8, March.
    8. Benjamin K. Sovacool & Chad M. Baum & Sean Low, 2022. "Determining our climate policy future: expert opinions about negative emissions and solar radiation management pathways," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 27(8), pages 1-50, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elspeth Spence & Emily Cox & Nick Pidgeon, 2021. "Exploring cross-national public support for the use of enhanced weathering as a land-based carbon dioxide removal strategy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Beckage, Brian & Lacasse, Katherine & Raimi, Kaitlin T. & Visioni, Daniele, 2023. "Integrating Risk Perception with Climate Models to Understand the Potential Deployment of Solar Radiation Modification to Mitigate Climate Change," RFF Working Paper Series 23-22, Resources for the Future.
    3. Chad M. Baum & Livia Fritz & Sean Low & Benjamin K. Sovacool, 2024. "Public perceptions and support of climate intervention technologies across the Global North and Global South," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    4. Marilou Jobin & Michael Siegrist, 2020. "Support for the Deployment of Climate Engineering: A Comparison of Ten Different Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 1058-1078, May.
    5. Zhen Dai & Elizabeth T. Burns & Peter J. Irvine & Dustin H. Tingley & Jianhua Xu & David W. Keith, 2021. "Elicitation of US and Chinese expert judgments show consistent views on solar geoengineering," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    6. Masahiro Sugiyama & Shinichiro Asayama & Atsushi Ishii & Takanobu Kosugi & John C. Moore & Jolene Lin & Penehuro F. Lefale & Wil Burns & Masatomo Fujiwara & Arunabha Ghosh & Joshua Horton & Atsushi Ku, 2017. "The Asia-Pacific’s role in the emerging solar geoengineering debate," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 143(1), pages 1-12, July.
    7. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch & Katrin Rehdanz, 2019. "Do climate engineering experts display moral-hazard behaviour?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 231-243, February.
    8. Khara D. Grieger & Tyler Felgenhauer & Ortwin Renn & Jonathan Wiener & Mark Borsuk, 2019. "Emerging risk governance for stratospheric aerosol injection as a climate management technology," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 371-382, December.
    9. Malcolm Fairbrother, 2016. "Geoengineering, moral hazard, and trust in climate science: evidence from a survey experiment in Britain," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 139(3), pages 477-489, December.
    10. Samaniego, Joseluis & Lorenzo, Santiago & Rondón Toro, Estefani & Krieger Merico, Luiz F. & Herrera Jiménez, Juan & Rouse, Paul & Harrison, Nicholas, 2023. "Nature-based solutions and carbon dioxide removal," Documentos de Proyectos 48691, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    11. Anna‐Maria Hubert, 2021. "A Code of Conduct for Responsible Geoengineering Research," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S1), pages 82-96, April.
    12. Sikina Jinnah & David Morrow & Simon Nicholson, 2021. "Splitting Climate Engineering Governance: How Problem Structure Shapes Institutional Design," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S1), pages 8-19, April.
    13. Carola Braun & Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2018. "Public perception of climate engineering and carbon capture and storage in Germany: survey evidence," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 471-484, April.
    14. Wylie Carr & Christopher Preston & Laurie Yung & Bronislaw Szerszynski & David Keith & Ashley Mercer, 2013. "Public engagement on solar radiation management and why it needs to happen now," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 567-577, December.
    15. Jesse L. Reynolds & Edward A. Parson, 2020. "Nonstate governance of solar geoengineering research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 323-342, May.
    16. Anesbury, Zachary William & Talbot, Danielle & Day, Chanel Andrea & Bogomolov, Tim & Bogomolova, Svetlana, 2020. "The fallacy of the heavy buyer: Exploring purchasing frequencies of fresh fruit and vegetable categories," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    17. Jane A. Flegal & Aarti Gupta, 2018. "Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? Scrutinizing emerging expert visions of equity," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 45-61, February.
    18. Wil Burns & Simon Nicholson, 2017. "Bioenergy and carbon capture with storage (BECCS): the prospects and challenges of an emerging climate policy response," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 7(4), pages 527-534, December.
    19. Gea Hoogendoorn & Bernadette Sütterlin & Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Tampering with Nature: A Systematic Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 141-156, January.
    20. Duncan McLaren & Olaf Corry, 2021. "Clash of Geofutures and the Remaking of Planetary Order: Faultlines underlying Conflicts over Geoengineering Governance," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S1), pages 20-33, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:160:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s10584-020-02706-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.