IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v152y2019i3d10.1007_s10584-019-02375-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public support for carbon dioxide removal strategies: the role of tampering with nature perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Kimberly S. Wolske

    (University of Chicago)

  • Kaitlin T. Raimi

    (University of Michigan)

  • Victoria Campbell-Arvai

    (University of Michigan)

  • P. Sol Hart

    (University of Michigan)

Abstract

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) describes a suite of controversial approaches to mitigating climate change that involve removing existing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Through an online survey experiment with US adults (N = 980), we examine three factors that may shape public support for different types of CDR strategies: (1) perceptions that CDR tampers with nature, (2) individual-level variation in the degree to which people are uncomfortable with activities that tamper with nature, and (3) information about the risks and benefits associated with each CDR strategy. Using a moderated mediation analysis, we find that support for different CDR strategies is, in part, a function of how much each strategy is perceived to tamper with nature. Support for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and direct air capture (DAC) was lower than support for afforestation and reforestation (AR), as BECCS and DAC were perceived to tamper with nature more. These effects were particularly strong among individuals generally opposed to the idea of humans interfering with natural processes. Moreover, we find evidence that describing the risks and benefits of each CDR strategy dampens support; for AR and BECCS, this effect was again mediated through perceptions of tampering, while for DAC, the effect of describing these tradeoffs appeared to operate independently of perceived tampering. We conclude that policymakers and science communicators need to be mindful of how CDR strategies are described to the public, as perceptions of tampering with nature may be an important driver of their acceptance.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:152:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-019-02375-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-019-02375-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-019-02375-z
    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/s10584-019-02375-z?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. Claudia Bassarak & Hans-Rüdiger Pfister & Gisela Böhm, 2017. "Dispute and morality in the perception of societal risks: extending the psychometric model," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 299-325, March.
    2. Daniel L. Sanchez & James H. Nelson & Josiah Johnston & Ana Mileva & Daniel M. Kammen, 2015. "Biomass enables the transition to a carbon-negative power system across western North America," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(3), pages 230-234, March.
    3. Holly Jean Buck, 2016. "Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social implications," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 155-167, November.
    4. Bernadette Sütterlin & Michael Siegrist, 2017. "Public perception of solar radiation management: the impact of information and evoked affect," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 1292-1307, October.
    5. Dirk Scheer & Ortwin Renn, 2014. "Public Perception of geoengineering and its consequences for public debate," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 125(3), pages 305-318, August.
    6. Victoria Campbell-Arvai & P. Sol Hart & Kaitlin T. Raimi & Kimberly S. Wolske, 2017. "The influence of learning about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on support for mitigation policies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 321-336, August.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Andrea M. Feldpausch-Parker & Morey Burnham & Maryna Melnik & Meaghan L. Callaghan & Theresa Selfa, 2015. "News Media Analysis of Carbon Capture and Storage and Biomass: Perceptions and Possibilities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-17, April.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:4:p:314-322 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. Paweł Gładysz & Magdalena Strojny & Łukasz Bartela & Maciej Hacaga & Thomas Froehlich, 2022. "Merging Climate Action with Energy Security through CCS—A Multi-Disciplinary Framework for Assessment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-28, December.
    5. Alexandra Buylova & Brent S. Steel & Christopher A. Simon, 2020. "Public Perceptions of Energy Scarcity and Support for New Energy Technologies: A Western U.S. Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, January.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Laurie Waller & Tim Rayner & Jason Chilvers & Clair Amanda Gough & Irene Lorenzoni & Andrew Jordan & Naomi Vaughan, 2020. "Contested framings of greenhouse gas removal and its feasibility: Social and political dimensions," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), July.
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. Victoria Wibeck & Anders Hansson & Jonas Anshelm & Shinichiro Asayama & Lisa Dilling & Pamela M. Feetham & Rachel Hauser & Atsushi Ishii & Masahiro Sugiyama, 2017. "Making sense of climate engineering: a focus group study of lay publics in four countries," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 1-14, November.
    11. 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.
    12. Terre Satterfield & Sara Nawaz & Guillaume Peterson St-Laurent, 2023. "Exploring public acceptability of direct air carbon capture with storage: climate urgency, moral hazards and perceptions of the ‘whole versus the parts’," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(2), pages 1-21, February.
    13. P. A. Turner & K. J. Mach & D. B. Lobell & S. M. Benson & E. Baik & D. L. Sanchez & C. B. Field, 2018. "The global overlap of bioenergy and carbon sequestration potential," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 1-10, May.
    14. 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.
    15. Federica Cucchiella & Idiano D’Adamo & Paolo Rosa, 2015. "Industrial Photovoltaic Systems: An Economic Analysis in Non-Subsidized Electricity Markets," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-16, November.
    16. Hanak, Dawid P. & Jenkins, Barrie G. & Kruger, Tim & Manovic, Vasilije, 2017. "High-efficiency negative-carbon emission power generation from integrated solid-oxide fuel cell and calciner," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 1189-1201.
    17. 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.
    18. Li, Bo & Ma, Ziming & Hidalgo-Gonzalez, Patricia & Lathem, Alex & Fedorova, Natalie & He, Gang & Zhong, Haiwang & Chen, Minyou & Kammen, Daniel M., 2021. "Modeling the impact of EVs in the Chinese power system: Pathways for implementing emissions reduction commitments in the power and transportation sectors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    19. Kamila Słupińska & Marek Wieruszewski & Piotr Szczypa & Anna Kożuch & Krzysztof Adamowicz, 2022. "Public Perception of the Use of Woody Biomass for Energy Purposes in the Evaluation of Content and Information Management on the Internet," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-11, September.
    20. 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.

    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:152:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-019-02375-z. 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.