Author
Listed:
- Amanda Sie
(Rutgers University)
- Steven R. Brechin
(Rutgers University)
- Christopher P. Borick
(Muhlenberg College)
Abstract
Geoengineering (GE) represents technologies designed to address climate change, either through carbon dioxide removal or solar radiation management. Researchers and stakeholders worry GE technologies will distract the public’s and policymakers' attention away from supporting more proven climate mitigation strategies, creating a “mitigation deterrence” effect. Missing from the discussion is investigating who is more likely to support GE over all other climate actions in general. “GE prioritization” turns our attention to those who are supportive of focusing efforts on GE instead of mitigation and other climate actions. This group is understudied but potentially as concerning as mitigation deterrence in future contexts of climate policymaking. We use a unique dataset to explore the US public’s preferences for four GE technologies, and whether these preferences predict GE prioritization. We also explore social factors including political, environmental, and climate beliefs, and confidence in scientists to conduct GE. We use data from the Summer 2020 wave of the National Surveys on Energy and Environment, a nationally representative survey in the US, and employ multinominal logistic regressions to examine the factors that predict GE prioritization. We find that three GE technologies, ocean fertilization, ambient air capture, and space mirrors positively predicted GE prioritization, as does higher confidence in scientists, conservative political beliefs, and being non-White. We argue that individuals who prioritize GE may provide justification for mitigation deterrence at the policy level in the future, and that further research is needed to create a more complete model to understand why individuals prioritize GE.
Suggested Citation
Amanda Sie & Steven R. Brechin & Christopher P. Borick, 2025.
"Geoengineering prioritization: a study of a proposed expression of mitigation deterrence,"
Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 178(11), pages 1-23, November.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:climat:v:178:y:2025:i:11:d:10.1007_s10584-025-04026-y
DOI: 10.1007/s10584-025-04026-y
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
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:178:y:2025:i:11:d:10.1007_s10584-025-04026-y. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.