Exploring public acceptability of direct air carbon capture with storage: climate urgency, moral hazards and perceptions of the ‘whole versus the parts’

Negative emission technologies (NETs) for the removal and long-term storage of atmospheric carbon are increasingly essential to meeting climate targets. In order to meet the need for large-scale and durable removals with low land and water footprints, scientists and engineers are exploring systems that directly capture CO2 from the air and store it underground or under the seabed. Often, the social acceptability of these systems is presumed unlikely given the sheer complexity of their components, governance arrangements, perceived advantages and disadvantages, and the different moral and value positions at play. This paper explores public perceptions of a proposed direct air carbon capture with storage (DACCS) system that includes renewable-powered direct air capture of CO2 paired with sub-seafloor injection and CO2 storage as rock via mineralization). Using a representative survey of n=2120 US and Canadian residents located near to a proposed system pilot, analysis reveals two very different profiles of perceivers, pro and con. Rejection of the system as a whole is driven by concern regarding storage or below-sea components, physical risks (e.g., leakage), and belief that such a system constitutes a moral hazard, enabling continued fossil fuel dependence. Conversely, those who support such a system perceive it as economically, climatically, and ethically beneficial now and for future generations, express a strong sense of climate severity and urgency, and see themselves as responsible for natural systems. We close with cautions as to the social licence for negative emission technologies, the implications of these findings, and the fragility of hope as these possibilities unfold.