Public support for carbon dioxide removal strategies: the role of tampering with nature perceptions
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.
This research was funded by the University of Michigan Energy Institute as part of the Beyond Carbon Neutral initiative.
- Beute F, de Kort YAW (2018) Thinking of nature: associations with natural versus urban environments and their relation to preference. Landsc Res 1–19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2018.1457144
- Braun C, Merk C, Pönitzsch G, et al (2017) Public perception of climate engineering and carbon capture and storage in Germany: survey evidence. Clim Pol 1–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1304888
- Clarke L, Jiang K, Akimoto K et al (2014) Assessing transformation pathways. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y et al (eds) Climate change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach, 1st edn. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 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. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Tarantola T et al (2015) Geoengineering and climate change polarization: testing a two-channel model of science communication. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 658:192–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214559002
- Lenton TM (2010) The potential for land-based biological CO2 removal to lower future atmospheric CO2 concentration. Carbon Manage 1;1:145–160 https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.10.12
- National Research Council (2015) Climate intervention: carbon dioxide removal and reliable sequestration. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Raimi KT, Wolske KS, Hart PS, Campbell-Arvai V (under review) The aversion to tampering with nature scale (ATN): individual differences in (dis)comfort with altering the natural worldGoogle Scholar
- Rudski JM, Osei W, Jacobson AR, Lynch CR (2011) Would you rather be injured by lightning or a downed power line? Preference for natural hazards. Judgm. Decis Mak 6:314–322Google Scholar
- Scott SE, Inbar Y, Wirz CD et al (2018) An overview of attitudes toward genetically engineered food. Annu Rev Nutr 38:459–479. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nutr-071715-051223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar