IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-23-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Integrating Risk Perception with Climate Models to Understand the Potential Deployment of Solar Radiation Modification to Mitigate Climate Change

Author

Listed:
  • Beckage, Brian
  • Lacasse, Katherine
  • Raimi, Kaitlin T.
  • Visioni, Daniele

Abstract

We develop a conceptual model that describes the transitions in the operationalization of solar radiation modification (SRM) as a climate intervention to reduce impacts from anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing of the climate system. We distinguish predevelopment, postdevelopment, and postdeployment phases of SRM operationalization. We explore the interactions between the human system and climate system that drive transitions between these stages in the emergence of SRM as a climate intervention. We discuss the insights around SRM development and deployment that emerge from this conceptual model.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-23-22
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rff.org/documents/3969/WP_23-22.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kaitlin T. Raimi & Kimberly S. Wolske & P. Sol Hart & Victoria Campbell‐Arvai, 2020. "The Aversion to Tampering with Nature (ATN) Scale: Individual Differences in (Dis)comfort with Altering the Natural World," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 638-656, March.
    2. Jim M. Haywood & Andy Jones & Nicolas Bellouin & David Stephenson, 2013. "Asymmetric forcing from stratospheric aerosols impacts Sahelian rainfall," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(7), pages 660-665, July.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Andrews, Talbot M. & Delton, Andrew W. & Kline, Reuben, 2022. "Anticipating moral hazard undermines climate mitigation in an experimental geoengineering game," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Kimberly S. Wolske & Kaitlin T. Raimi & Victoria Campbell-Arvai & P. Sol Hart, 2019. "Public support for carbon dioxide removal strategies: the role of tampering with nature perceptions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 345-361, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Jing Shi & Michael Siegrist & Joseph Arvai, 2017. "Beliefs and values explain international differences in perception of solar radiation management: insights from a cross-country survey," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 531-544, June.
    11. Klaus, Geraldine & Ernst, Andreas & Oswald, Lisa, 2020. "Psychological factors influencing laypersons’ acceptance of climate engineering, climate change mitigation and business as usual scenarios," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    12. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Todd L. Cherry & Stephan Kroll & David M. McEvoy, 2023. "Climate cooperation with risky solar geoengineering," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(10), pages 1-14, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Shannan K. Sweet & Jonathon P. Schuldt & Johannes Lehmann & Deborah A. Bossio & Dominic Woolf, 2021. "Perceptions of naturalness predict US public support for Soil Carbon Storage as a climate solution," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-15, May.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Ariane Wenger & Michael Stauffacher & Irina Dallo, 2021. "Public perception and acceptance of negative emission technologies – framing effects in Switzerland," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-20, August.
    10. Dipu, Sudhakar & Quaas, Johannes & Quaas, Martin & Rickels, Wilfried & Mülmenstädt, Johannes & Boucher, Olivier, 2021. "Substantial Climate Response outside the Target Area in an Idealized Experiment of Regional Radiation Management," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 240193, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    11. 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.
    12. Klaus, Geraldine & Ernst, Andreas & Oswald, Lisa, 2020. "Psychological factors influencing laypersons’ acceptance of climate engineering, climate change mitigation and business as usual scenarios," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    13. 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.
    14. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    15. 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.
    16. Kelly Wanser & Sarah J. Doherty & James W. Hurrell & Alex Wong, 2022. "Near-term climate risks and sunlight reflection modification: a roadmap approach for physical sciences research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 174(3), pages 1-20, October.
    17. 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).
    18. Kimberly S. Wolske & Kaitlin T. Raimi & Victoria Campbell-Arvai & P. Sol Hart, 2019. "Public support for carbon dioxide removal strategies: the role of tampering with nature perceptions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 345-361, March.
    19. Christine Merk & Gernot Wagner, 2024. "Presenting balanced geoengineering information has little effect on mitigation engagement," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(1), pages 1-17, January.
    20. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang & Zhao, Xiangmo, 2019. "Road tests of self-driving vehicles: Affective and cognitive pathways in acceptance formation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-369.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-23-22. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    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.