IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v147y2018i1d10.1007_s10584-018-2138-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceptions of climate engineering in the South Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, and North American Arctic

Author

Listed:
  • Wylie A. Carr

    (US Fish and Wildlife Service)

  • Laurie Yung

    (University of Montana)

Abstract

Nearly all research on public perceptions of climate engineering has been conducted in wealthy, developed countries. However, understanding perspectives from vulnerable populations is critical to inclusive, democratic debate on both research and governance. This study utilized in-depth interviews to explore the perspectives of vulnerable populations in the South Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the North American Arctic. Interviewees in this study were desperate for solutions to climate change and therefore willing to consider climate engineering. However, their willingness to consider climate engineering could be characterized as both deeply reluctant and highly conditional. Interviewees expressed a number of concerns about potential social and political implications of engineering the climate. They also described conditions that may need to be met to ensure that future climates (engineered or otherwise) are more equitable.

Suggested Citation

  • Wylie A. Carr & Laurie Yung, 2018. "Perceptions of climate engineering in the South Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, and North American Arctic," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 119-132, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:147:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-018-2138-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-018-2138-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-018-2138-x
    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/s10584-018-2138-x?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. Nick Pidgeon & Karen Parkhill & Adam Corner & Naomi Vaughan, 2013. "Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(5), pages 451-457, May.
    2. Corner, Adam & Venables, Dan & Spence, Alexa & Poortinga, Wouter & Demski, Christina & Pidgeon, Nick, 2011. "Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: Exploring British public attitudes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 4823-4833, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Juan Moreno-Cruz & Katharine Ricke & David Keith, 2012. "A simple model to account for regional inequalities in the effectiveness of solar radiation management," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 110(3), pages 649-668, 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. John C. Moore & Ilona Mettiäinen & Michael Wolovick & Liyun Zhao & Rupert Gladstone & Ying Chen & Stefan Kirchner & Timo Koivurova, 2021. "Targeted Geoengineering: Local Interventions with Global Implications," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S1), pages 108-118, April.
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    5. Joshua B. Horton & Penehuro Lefale & David Keith, 2021. "Parametric Insurance for Solar Geoengineering: Insights from the Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S1), pages 97-107, April.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Joseph Versen & Zaruhi Mnatsakanyan & Johannes Urpelainen, 2022. "Concerns of climate intervention: understanding geoengineering security concerns in the Arctic and beyond," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 1-20, April.

    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. 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.
    2. Johannes Emmerling & Massimo Tavoni, 2018. "Climate Engineering and Abatement: A ‘flat’ Relationship Under Uncertainty," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 395-415, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Merk, Christine & Pönitzsch, Gert & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "Knowledge about aerosol injection does not reduce individual mitigation efforts," Kiel Working Papers 2006, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    5. 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.
    6. Gupta, Kuhika & Nowlin, Matthew C. & Ripberger, Joseph T. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L., 2019. "Tracking the nuclear ‘mood’ in the United States: Introducing a long term measure of public opinion about nuclear energy using aggregate survey data," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    7. Andrew Chapman & Timothy Fraser & Melanie Dennis, 2019. "Investigating Ties between Energy Policy and Social Equity Research: A Citation Network Analysis," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, April.
    8. Poortinga, Wouter & Aoyagi, Midori & Pidgeon, Nick F., 2013. "Public perceptions of climate change and energy futures before and after the Fukushima accident: A comparison between Britain and Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1204-1211.
    9. 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.
    10. Govindan, Mini & Ram Mohan, M.P., 2021. "Exploring Gender Perceptions of Nuclear Energy in India," IIMA Working Papers WP 2021-11-06, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    11. Zeynep Clulow & Michele Ferguson & Peta Ashworth & David Reiner, 2021. "Political ideology and public views of the energy transition in Australia and the UK," Working Papers EPRG2106, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    12. Todd Sandler, 2018. "Collective action and geoengineering," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 105-125, March.
    13. Wang, Yu & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Explaining local residents’ acceptance of rebuilding nuclear power plants: The roles of perceived general benefit and perceived local benefit," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    14. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    15. Okubo, Toshihiro & Narita, Daiju & Rehdanz, Katrin & Schröder, Carsten, 2020. "Preferences for Nuclear Power in Post-Fukushima Japan: Evidence from a Large Nationwide Household Survey," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(11).
    16. Khalid Rasheed Memon & Say Keat Ooi & Heesup Han, 2024. "Responsible innovation and corporate sustainability performance: A structural equation modeling‐neural network approach," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(4), pages 2712-2730, May.
    17. Wang, Fan & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Perspective taking, energy policy involvement, and public acceptance of nuclear energy: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    18. Linares, Pedro & Conchado, Adela, 2013. "The economics of new nuclear power plants in liberalized electricity markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(S1), pages 119-125.
    19. Timo Goeschl & Daniel Heyen & Juan Moreno-Cruz, 2013. "The Intergenerational Transfer of Solar Radiation Management Capabilities and Atmospheric Carbon Stocks," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 85-104, September.
    20. Yukiko Omata & Hajime Katayama & Toshi. H. Arimura, 2017. "Same concerns, same responses? A Bayesian quantile regression analysis of the determinants for supporting nuclear power generation in Japan," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(3), pages 581-608, July.

    More about this item

    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:spr:climat:v:147:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-018-2138-x. 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.