Abstract
International CO2 emissions reduction commitments are insufficient to avert damaging global warming and imperil a sustainable future. Climate engineering approaches are increasingly proposed as near-term intervention strategies, but deployment of these controversial techniques will require careful engagement with and the support of the public. New quantitative measurements of public perceptions for six climate engineering approaches show that the public of the United Kingdom (UK), United States (US), Australia (AU) and New Zealand (NZ) continue to have little knowledge of climate engineering. All approaches are regarded unfavourably, albeit less so for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) than solar radiation management (SRM). Knowledge and perceptions are remarkably similar between countries although UK and US respondents are more favourable towards SRM and UK respondents are more favourable towards CDR. Stratospheric aerosol injection is the most negatively perceived approach. Support for small-scale trials is also higher for CDR approaches than SRM. Statistical analyses yield mixed relationships between perceptions of climate engineering and age, political affiliation and pro-ecological views. Thus far, attempts to engage the public with climate engineering have seen little change over time and consequently, there is growing urgency to facilitate careful citizen deliberation using objective and instructive information about climate engineering.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Anderson JR (1983) A spreading activation theory of memory. J Verb Learn Verb Be 22:261–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90201-3
Anderson JR, Bower GH (1974) Human associative memory. Wiley, Washington, DC
Asher H (2017) The problem of nonattitudes. In: Polling and the public: what every citizen should know, 9th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 43–72
Australia Bureau of Statistics (2017) 8146.0 - Household use of information technology, Australia, 2016–17. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8146.0. Accessed 27 Feb 2019
Bawden T (2016) COP21: Paris deal far too weak to prevent devastating climate change, academics warn. https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cop21-paris-deal-far-too-weak-to-prevent-devastating-climate-change-academics-warn-a6803096.html Accessed 03 March 2020
Bellamy R, Healey P (2018) ‘Slippery slope’ or ‘uphill struggle’? Broadening out expert scenarios of climate engineering research and development. Environ Sci Pol 83:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.021
Bellamy R, Lezaun J (2017) Crafting a public for geoengineering. Public Underst Sci 26:402–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515600965
Bellamy R, Chilvers J, Vaughan NE, Lenton TM (2012) A review of climate geoengineering appraisals. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 3:597–615. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.197
Bellamy R, Chilvers J, Vaughan NE, Lenton TM (2013) ‘Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal: multi-criteria mapping of options for tackling climate change. Glob Environ Chang 23:926–937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.011
Bellamy R, Chilvers J, Vaughan NE (2016) Deliberative mapping of options for tackling climate change: citizens and specialists ‘open up’ appraisal of geoengineering. Public Underst Sci 25:269–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514548628
Bellamy R, Lezaun J, Palmer J (2019) Perceptions of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in different policy scenarios. Nat Commun 10:743. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-08592-5
Biermann F, Möller I (2019) Rich man’s solution? Climate engineering discourses and the marginalization of the Global South. Int Environ Agreem-P 19:151–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-019-09431-0
Braun C, Merk C, Pönitzsch G, Rehdanz K, Schmidt U (2018a) Public perception of climate engineering and carbon capture and storage in Germany: survey evidence. Clim Pol 18:471–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1304888
Braun C, Rehdanz K, Schmidt U (2018b) Exploring public perception of environmental technology over time. J Environ Plann Man 61:143–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1291414
Burns E, Flegal JA, Keith DW, Mahajan A, Tingley D, Wagner G (2016) What do people think when they think about solar geoengineering? A review of empirical social science literature, and prospects for future research. Earth’s Future 4:536–542. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000461
Chilvers J (2009) Deliberative and participatory approaches in environmental geography. In: Noel Castree DD, Liverman D, Rhoads B (eds) A Companion to Environmental Geography. Wiley, West Sussex
Colvin RM et al (2019) Learning from the climate change debate to avoid polarisation on negative emissions. Environ Commun. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1630463
Corner A, Pidgeon NF (2010) Geoengineering the climate: the social and ethical implications. Environment 52:24–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139150903479563
Corner A, Pidgeon NF (2015) Like artificial trees? The effect of framing by natural analogy on public perceptions of geoengineering. Clim Chang 130:425–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1148-6
Corner A, Parkhill KA, Pidgeon NF (2011) ‘Experiment earth?’ Reflections on a public dialogue on geoengineering: reflections on a public dialogue on geoengineering
Corner A, Pidgeon NF, Parkhill KA (2012) Perceptions of geoengineering: public attitudes, stakeholder perspectives, and the challenge of ‘upstream’ engagement. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 3:451–466. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.176
Cummings CL, Lin SH, Trump BD (2017) Public perceptions of climate geoengineering: a systematic review of the literature. Clim Res 73:247–264. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01475
Díaz Andrade A, Hedges MR, Karimikia H, Techatassanasoontorn A (2018) World internet project: the internet in New Zealand 2017. New Zealand Work Research Institute, Auckland
Doyle A (2017) Climate scientists sucking carbon dioxide from air and dimming sun's rays with chemicals to cool planet. https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/geo-engineering-technology-climate-change-environment-climeworks-carbon-dioxide-chemicals-dimming-a7860356.html Accessed 03 March 2020
Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AG, Jones RE (2000) New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J Soc Issues 56:425–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176
Dütschke E, Wohlfarth K, Höller S, Viebahn P, Schumann D, Pietzner K (2016) Differences in the public perception of CCS in Germany depending on CO2 source, transport option and storage location. Int J Greenh Gas Con 53:149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.07.043
Fiorino DJ (1990) Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 15:226–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399001500204
Heyward C (2013) Situating and abandoning geoengineering: a typology of five responses to dangerous climate change. Polit Sci Polit 46:23–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096512001436
Horton JB (2015) Why we should treat SRM and CDR separately. https://ceassessment.org/why-we-should-treat-srm-and-cdr-separately-joshua-b-horton/ Accessed 03 March 2020
IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: Pachauri RK, Meyer LA (eds) IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland
Irvine P, Emanuel K, He J, Horowitz LW, Vecchi G, Keith D (2019) Halving warming with idealized solar geoengineering moderates key climate hazards. Nat Clim Chang 9:295–299. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0398-8
Ki-moon B (2019) Governing geoengineering. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/climate-change-geoengineering-technologies-governance-by-ban-ki-moon-2019-03 Accessed 03 March 2020
Kravitz B et al (2018) The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project–introduction to the second special issue. Atmos Chem Phys. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-special_issue376-preface
Kravitz B et al (2019) Holistic assessment of SO2 injections using CESM1 (WACCM): introduction to the special issue. J Geophys Res-Atmos 124:444–450. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029293
Lawrence MG et al (2018) Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Nat Commun 9:3734. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05938-3
Lomax G, Workman M, Lenton T, Shah N (2015) Reframing the policy approach to greenhouse gas removal technologies. Energy Policy 78:125–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.10.002
MacMartin DG, Ricke KL, Keith DW (2018) Solar geoengineering as part of an overall strategy for meeting the 1.5 C Paris target. Phil Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 376. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0454
Merk C, Pönitzsch G (2017) The role of affect in attitude formation toward new technologies: the case of stratospheric aerosol injection. Risk Anal 37:2289–2304. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12780
Merk C, Pönitzsch G, Kniebes C, Rehdanz K, Schmidt U (2015) Exploring public perceptions of stratospheric sulfate injection. Clim Chang 130:299–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1317-7
Minx JC et al (2018) Negative emissions - part 1: research landscape and synthesis. Environ Res Lett 13. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9b
National Academies of Science (2015a) Climate intervention: carbon dioxide removal and reliable sequestration. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
National Academies of Science (2015b) Climate intervention: reflecting sunlight to cool earth. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Office for National Statistics (2018) Internet access – households and individuals, Great Britain: 2018. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homeinternetandsocialmediausage/bulletins/internetaccesshouseholdsandindividuals/2018. Accessed 27 Feb 2019
Rayner S, Heyward C, Kruger T, Pidgeon NF, Redgwell C, Savulescu J (2013) The Oxford principles climatic change 121:499–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0675-2
Rogers B, Ryals L (2007) Using the repertory grid to access the underlying realities in key account relationships. Int J Mark Res 49:595–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530704900506
Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon NF (2007) Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering's inquiry. Public Underst Sci 16:345–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506076141
Romaniuk J (2013) Modeling mental market share. J Bus Res 66:188–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.07.012
Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms 30:251–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724
Royal Society, Royal Academy of Engineering (2018) Greenhouse gas removal
Ryan C, Lewis JM (2017) Computer and internet use in the United States: 2015. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC
Salter S, Stevenson T, Tsiamis A (2014) Engineering ideas for brighter clouds. In: Hester RE, Harrison RM (eds) Geoengineering of the climate system., vol 38. Issues in Environmental Science and Technology. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, pp 131–161
Scarrow R (2019) Nuanced views. Nature Sustain 2:441–441. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0318-y
Schleussner CF et al (2016) Science and policy characteristics of the Paris agreement temperature goal. Nat Clim Chang 6:827–835. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3096
Sharp B (2010) How brands grow: what marketers don't know. Oxford University Press, Melbourne, Australia
Smith JP, Dykema JA, Keith DW (2018) Production of sulfates onboard an aircraft: implications for the cost and feasibility of stratospheric solar geoengineering. Earth Space Sci 5:150–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/2018EA000370
Stirling A (2008) “Opening up” and “closing down”: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Hum Values 33:262–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907311265
Tollefson J (2018) First sun-dimming experiment will test a way to cool earth. Nature 563:613–615. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07533-4
UNEP (2018) The emissions gap report 2018. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi
Watts J (2018) Geoengineering may be used to combat global warming, experts say. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/geoengineering-global-warming-ipcc Accessed 03 March 2020
Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London
Winickoff DE, Flegal JA, Asrat A (2015) Engaging the Global South on climate engineering research. Nat Clim Chang 5:627–634. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2632
Wright M, Klÿn B (1998) Environmental attitude behaviour correlations in 21 countries. J Empir Gen Mark Sci 3:42–60
Wright MJ, Teagle D, Feetham PM (2014) A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering. Nat Clim Chang 4:106–110. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2087
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Professor Stephen Salter for helpful comments on marine cloud brightening.
Additional information
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to DC at D.Carlisle@massey.ac.nz.
Funding
The work was supported by The Massey University Research Fund (PF, MW).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
DT conceived the original project, advised on climate engineering approaches and contributed to writing. MW raised research funds, developed the research design, advised on and checked analysis and contributed to writing. PF raised research funds, helped with research design, fieldwork, analysis, and co-wrote the main body. DC developed materials, carried out the analysis, co-wrote the main body and provided the supplementary materials.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
The consistency of these results provides
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(PDF 876 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carlisle, D.P., Feetham, P.M., Wright, M.J. et al. The public remain uninformed and wary of climate engineering. Climatic Change 160, 303–322 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02706-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02706-5