Climatic Change

, Volume 130, Issue 2, pp 299–312 | Cite as

Exploring public perceptions of stratospheric sulfate injection

  • Christine Merk
  • Gert Pönitzsch
  • Carola Kniebes
  • Katrin Rehdanz
  • Ulrich Schmidt
Article

Abstract

Injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere could quickly offset global warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Because the technology would have global side effects, it raises not only technological but also political, ethical, and social concerns. Therefore, research on sulfate injection should be accompanied by a global debate that incorporates public perceptions and concerns into the development and governance of the technology. Our paper provides insight into public perceptions and explores their underlying patterns using a survey conducted in Germany. The data reveal a differentiated picture. Laboratory research on sulfate injection is broadly approved, whereas field research is much less approved. Immediate deployment is largely rejected. The acceptance of the technology is associated with the belief that climate change is a serious problem and that humans will eventually be able to control nature. It is also determined by the levels of trust in scientists and firms. Among the strongest objections against the technology is the belief that humans should not manipulate nature in the way injecting sulfate would. The actual public perceptions of sulfate injection will, however, evolve along with the ongoing debate between the public, experts, and policymakers.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper is part of the project ACCEPT which is funded by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (grant number 01LA1112A). We would like to thank three anonymous reviewers, Ashley Mercer, Nick Pidgeon, Andreas Oschlies, Gernot Klepper, Wilfried Rickels, Dorothee Amelung, and Timo Goeschl for their helpful comments and suggestions. We also thank participants of an IASS seminar, the Oxford Summer School on Geoengineering Research, and research seminars in Kiel. Furthermore, we want to thank Swantje Sundt for valuable research assistance.

Supplementary material

10584_2014_1317_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (180 kb)
ESM 1(PDF 179 kb)
ESM 2

Slide 1 Sunlight warms the Earth and the Earth’s atmosphere. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as CO2, ensure that a certain amount of heat remains close to the Earth’s surface. This makes the Earth warm enough for humans, animals, and plants to survive.

Slide 2 Since the beginning of industrialization around the year 1850, humans have emitted large amounts of greenhouse gases, for example, by burning coal, oil, and gas. These gases trap additional heat in the atmosphere and cause a gradual increase in the average global temperature.

Slide 3 – 8 Since 1900, the global temperature has risen on average by approximately 0.8°C. Almost all countries agree that the increase in the average global temperature should not exceed 2°C compared to the temperature at the beginning of the industrialization. This is referred to as the 2°C goal. A future temperature increase between 0.9°C and 5.4°C is expected by 2100. The outcome depends especially on the amount of greenhouse gases emitted in the future. To reach the 2°C goal, the current level of emissions would have to decrease by more than half by 2050. By 2100, almost no greenhouse gases should be emitted.

Slide 9 Climate change will almost certainly cause a rise in sea levels. It is very likely that both the frequency of heat waves and the number of heavy precipitation events will increase in many regions. In the future, it is likely that more areas will be affected by longer droughts and that the frequency and the intensity of tropical cyclones will increase. In addition, because oceans absorb some of the CO2 in the atmosphere, they will become more acidic.

Slide 10 There are different ways to deal with climate change: We can reduce greenhouse gas emissions or adapt to the new climate – for example, by building dikes or using more robust plants in agriculture. Another option is to reduce the global temperature by deploying solar radiation management (SRM).

Slide 11 Through SRM, a portion of the sunlight is reflected before it can warm the Earth. This can be achieved by, for example, spraying sulfate particles into the atmosphere at a high altitude. A similar phenomenon is observed in nature. When large volcanoes erupt, similar particles are distributed across wide areas of the Earth’s atmosphere, which cools the Earth.

Slide 12 The particles remain in the higher regions of the atmosphere for about two years. To prevent the Earth from heating up again, spraying would have to be continued until the cause of global warming is removed. Because the emitted CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time, SRM might have to be used for several centuries. Ocean acidification will not be halted by using SRM. However, the 2°C goal could be met regardless of future greenhouse gas emissions by deploying SRM. Currently, researchers are investigating the risks, benefits, and feasibility of SRM.

Slide 13 The use of SRM entails benefits as well as risks. One benefit is that global warming might be slowed more quickly compared to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This would provide mankind with additional time to remove the cause of climate change, i.e., the high concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Massive and irreversible changes in the climate could be stopped before too much damage is done. Furthermore, it would be possible to stop climate change even if certain countries refused to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Deploying SRM would be cheaper than reducing the consumption of fossil fuels.

Slide 14 The risks include a change in the amount of precipitation in most regions. In particular, arid regions would have to cope with even less rain. If the deployment of SRM were suddenly halted, the global temperature would rise abruptly. The speed of this temperature rise might lead to severe problems for humans and the environment. Because possible side effects would occur across international boundaries, the use of SRM might cause international conflicts. Once used, SRM might take away people’s motivation to change their lifestyle and the emission of greenhouse gases would continue to increase. Furthermore, there would be the threat of other unknown and unforeseeable risks.

10584_2014_1317_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (947 kb)
ESM 3(PDF 947 kb)

References

  1. Barrett S (2008) The incredible economics of geoengineering. Environ Resour Econ 39:45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellamy R, Hulme M (2011) Beyond the tipping point: understanding perceptions of abrupt climate change and their implications. Weather Clim Soc 3:48–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borick C, Rabe B (2012) Americans cool on geoengineering approaches to addressing climate change. Issues Gov Studies 46Google Scholar
  4. Bostrom A et al (2012) Causal thinking and support for climate change policies: international survey findings. Glob Environ Chang 22:210–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buck, HJ (2010) What can geoengineering do for us? Public participation and the new media landscape. http://umt.edu/ethics/ethicsgeoengineering/Workshop/articles1/Holly%20Buck.pdf
  6. Carr, WA (2014) This is God’s stuff we’re messing with: Geoengineering as a religious issue. Geoengineering Our Clim Working Paper and Opin Article Ser. http://wp.me/p2zsRk-aT
  7. Carr WA, Preston CJ, Yung L et al (2013) Public engagement on solar radiation management and why it needs to happen now. Clim Chang 121(3):567–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corner A, Parkhill K, Pidgeon N et al (2013) Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Glob Environ Chang 23(5):938–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corner A, Pidgeon N, Parkhill K (2012) Perceptions of geoengineering: public attitudes, stakeholder perspectives, and the challenge of ‘upstream’ engagement. Wirel Clim Chang 3(5):451–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corner A, Pidgeon N (2014) Like artificial trees? The effect of framing by natural analogy on public perceptions of geoengineering. Clim Chang. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1148-6 Google Scholar
  11. Crutzen P (2006) Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to solve a policy dilemma? Clim Chang 77:211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D et al (2011) Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J Eur Econ Assoc 9(3):522–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunlap RE, van Liere KD, Mertig AG et al (2000) New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J Soc Issues 56(3):425–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Earle TC (2010) Trust in risk management: a model-based review of empirical research. Risk Anal 30:541–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. European Commission (2011) Public awareness and acceptance of CO2 capture and storage. Special Eurobarometer 364. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_364_en.pdf
  16. Hansen A (2006) Tampering with nature: ‘nature’ and the ‘natural’ in media coverage of genetics and biotechnology. Media Cult Soc 28:811–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IPCC (2013) Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. IPCC (2012) Meeting report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expert meeting on geoengineering. IPCC Working Group III Technical Support Unit, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  19. IPCC (2007) Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Kahan D, Jenkins-Smith H, Tarantola T, Silva CL, Braman D (2012) Geoengineering and the science communication environment: a cross-cultural experiment. Cultural Cognition Working Paper 92. Yale Law School, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  21. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C et al (2012) Climate change in the American mind: Americans′ global warming beliefs and attitudes in March 2012. Yale University and George Mason University, New Haven, Yale Proj on Clim Chang Comm. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Climate-Beliefs-March-2012.pdfGoogle Scholar
  22. Macnaghten P, Szerszynski B (2013) Living the global social experiment: an analysis of public discourse on solar radiation management and its implications for governance. Glob Environ Chang 23(2):465–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marquart-Pyatt S (2012) Contextual influences on environmental concerns cross-nationally: a multilevel investigation. Soc Sci Res 41(5):1085–1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mercer AM, Keith DW, Sharp JD (2011) Public understanding of solar radiation management. Environ Res Lett 6(4):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pidgeon N, Corner A, Parkhill K et al (2012) Exploring early public responses to geoengineering. Philos Trans R Soc 370:4176–4196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pidgeon N, Parkhill K, Corner A et al (2013) Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nat Clim Chang 3:451–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rayner S, Redgwell C, Savulescu J, Pidgeon N, Kruger T (2009) Memorandum on draft principles for the conduct of geoengineering research. http://www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/oxford-principles/history/
  28. Rickels W, Klepper G (2012) The real economics of climate engineering. Econ Res Intern 2012Google Scholar
  29. Rickels W et al (2011) Large-scale intentional interventions into the climate system? Assessing the climate engineering debate. Scoping report conducted on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). Kiel Earth Institute, KielGoogle Scholar
  30. Robock A (2008) 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Bull At Sci 64(2):4–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Robock A, MacMartin DG, Duren R et al (2013) Studying geoengineering with natural and anthropogenic analogs. Clim Chang 121(3):445–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Robock A, Oman L, Stenchikov G (2008) Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and arctic SO2 injections. J Geophys Res 113(D16101)Google Scholar
  33. Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty. The Royal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Spence A, Venables D, Pidgeon N, Poortinga W, Demski C (2010) Public perceptions of climate change and energy futures in Britain. Understanding Risk Working Paper 10-01. School of Psychology, CardiffGoogle Scholar
  35. SRMGI (2011) Solar radiation management: The governance of research. Environmental Defense Fund, The Royal Society, TWAS. http://www.srmgi.org/files/2012/01/DES2391_SRMGI-report_web_11112.pdf
  36. Sugiyama M, Fujiwara M (2012) Public perception of climate engineering in Japan: Results from online and classroom surveys. mimeoGoogle Scholar
  37. US GAO (2011) Climate engineering: Technical status, future directions, and potential responses. GAO-11-71. Government Accountability Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  38. Victor DG (2008) On the regulation of geoengineering. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 24(2):322–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Virgoe J (2009) International governance of a possible geoengineering intervention to combat climate change. Clim Chang 95(1):103–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. WVS (2013) Values surveys database, wave 2005-2008. http://www.wvsevsdb.com/wvs/WVSAnalize.jsp

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine Merk
    • 1
  • Gert Pönitzsch
    • 1
  • Carola Kniebes
    • 1
  • Katrin Rehdanz
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ulrich Schmidt
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Kiel Institute for the World EconomyKielGermany
  2. 2.Kiel UniversityKielGermany
  3. 3.Department of Economics and EconometricsUniversity of JohannesburgJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations