IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i7p4119-d783476.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Protecting the Planet or Destroying the Universe? Understanding Reactions to Space Mining

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew J. Hornsey

    (Business School, University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia)

  • Kelly S. Fielding

    (School of Communication and Arts, University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia)

  • Emily A. Harris

    (Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne 3010, Australia)

  • Paul G. Bain

    (School of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK)

  • Tim Grice

    (Square Circle, Brisbane 4000, Australia)

  • Cassandra M. Chapman

    (Business School, University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia)

Abstract

There is currently a surge in interest from both private and government sectors in developing technology for mining asteroids and the moon (“space mining”). One of the key benefits highlighted by advocates of space mining is that it minimizes the usual problems associated with mining on earth in terms of pollution, environmental degradation, and encroachment on human habitats. Two studies—one conducted on a 27-nation sample ( N = 4819), the other conducted in the U.S. ( N = 607)—provide the first test of the assumed (but never studied) notion that space mining is more palatable to the public than terrestrial mining. Both studies indicate broad support for asteroid mining: levels of support were reliably above the mid-point, and much greater than for other forms of frontier mining such as mining the ocean floor, mining Antarctica, mining the Alaskan tundra, and lunar mining. Unlike terrestrial mining, community attitudes toward mining asteroids were largely non-ideological; support was not correlated with perceptions of ecological fragility, political ideology, or individualistic/hierarchical worldviews. In summary, the current studies suggest that mining companies have a “social license to operate” for mining asteroids, but less so for lunar mining.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew J. Hornsey & Kelly S. Fielding & Emily A. Harris & Paul G. Bain & Tim Grice & Cassandra M. Chapman, 2022. "Protecting the Planet or Destroying the Universe? Understanding Reactions to Space Mining," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:4119-:d:783476
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/4119/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/4119/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew J. Hornsey & Emily A. Harris & Paul G. Bain & Kelly S. Fielding, 2016. "Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(6), pages 622-626, June.
    2. Joseph Henrich & Steve J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "The Weirdest People in the World?," RatSWD Working Papers 139, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    3. Michael W. Slimak & Thomas Dietz, 2006. "Personal Values, Beliefs, and Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1689-1705, December.
    4. Ezra Markowitz, 2012. "Is climate change an ethical issue? Examining young adults’ beliefs about climate and morality," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(3), pages 479-495, October.
    5. Dan Kahan, 2010. "Fixing the communications failure," Nature, Nature, vol. 463(7279), pages 296-297, January.
    6. Brock Bastian & Airong Zhang & Kieren Moffat, 2015. "The Interaction of Economic Rewards and Moral Convictions in Predicting Attitudes toward Resource Use," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-9, August.
    7. Ezra M. Markowitz & Azim F. Shariff, 2012. "Climate change and moral judgement," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(4), pages 243-247, April.
    8. Xingmin Shi, 2015. "Factors Influencing the Environmental Satisfaction of Local Residents in the Coal Mining Area, China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 120(1), pages 67-77, January.
    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. Agneman, Gustav & Henriks, Sofia & Bäck, Hanna & Renström, Emma, 2024. "On the nexus between material and ideological determinants of climate policy support," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    2. Rosalind Pidcock & Kate Heath & Lydia Messling & Susie Wang & Anna Pirani & Sarah Connors & Adam Corner & Christopher Shaw & Melissa Gomis, 2021. "Evaluating effective public engagement: local stories from a global network of IPCC scientists," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 168(3), pages 1-22, October.
    3. Sælen, Håkon Grøn & Aasen, Marianne, 2023. "Exploring public opposition and support across different climate policies: Poles apart?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    4. Brock Bastian & Airong Zhang & Kieren Moffat, 2015. "The Interaction of Economic Rewards and Moral Convictions in Predicting Attitudes toward Resource Use," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-9, August.
    5. Zachary A. Wendling & Shahzeen Z. Attari & Sanya R. Carley & Rachel M. Krause & David C. Warren & John A. Rupp & John D. Graham, 2013. "On the Importance of Strengthening Moderate Beliefs in Climate Science to Foster Support for Immediate Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(12), pages 1-18, December.
    6. Jialing Huang & Janet Z. Yang & Haoran Chu, 2022. "Framing Climate Change Impacts as Moral Violations: The Pathway of Perceived Message Credibility," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-19, April.
    7. Robert O Keohane & Melissa Lane & Michael Oppenheimer, 2014. "The ethics of scientific communication under uncertainty," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 13(4), pages 343-368, November.
    8. Ting Liu & Nick Shryane & Mark Elliot, 2022. "Attitudes to climate change risk: classification of and transitions in the UK population between 2012 and 2020," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    9. Tobia Spampatti & Ulf J. J. Hahnel & Evelina Trutnevyte & Tobias Brosch, 2024. "Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(2), pages 380-398, February.
    10. Simon Donner, 2014. "Finding your place on the science – advocacy continuum: an editorial essay," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 1-8, May.
    11. Bader Alhafi Alotaibi & Azhar Abbas & Raza Ullah & Roshan K. Nayak & Muhammad I. Azeem & Hazem S. Kassem, 2021. "Climate Change Concerns of Saudi Arabian Farmers: The Drivers and Their Role in Perceived Capacity Building Needs for Adaptation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-22, November.
    12. Lorteau, Steve & Muzzerall, Parker & Deneault, Audrey-Ann & Kennedy, Emily Huddart & Rocque, Rhéa & Racine, Nicole & Bureau, Jean-François, 2024. "Do climate concerns and worries predict energy preferences? A meta-analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    13. Matias Spektor & Guilherme N. Fasolin & Juliana Camargo, 2023. "Climate change beliefs and their correlates in Latin America," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    14. Juha Itkonen, 2015. "Social ties and concern for global warming," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 132(2), pages 173-192, September.
    15. Sibilla Di Guida & Ido Erev & Davide Marchiori, 2014. "Cross Cultural Differences in Decisions from Experience: Evidence from Denmark, Israel and Taiwain," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2014-16, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    16. Hind Dib‐slamani & Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2021. "Is theft considered less severe when the victim is a foreign company?," Post-Print hal-03340844, HAL.
    17. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    18. Kyriaki Remoundou & Drichoutis Andreas & Phoebe Koundouri, 2010. "Warm glow in charitable auctions: Are the WEIRDos driving the results?," DEOS Working Papers 1028, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    19. Stephen L. Cheung & Agnieszka Tymula & Xueting Wang, 2022. "Present bias for monetary and dietary rewards," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1202-1233, September.
    20. Nathaniel Geiger & Bryan McLaughlin & John Velez, 2021. "Not all boomers: temporal orientation explains inter- and intra-cultural variability in the link between age and climate engagement," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-20, May.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:4119-:d:783476. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.