Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 152, Issue 3–4, pp 345–361 | Cite as

Public support for carbon dioxide removal strategies: the role of tampering with nature perceptions

  • Kimberly S. WolskeEmail author
  • Kaitlin T. Raimi
  • Victoria Campbell-Arvai
  • P. Sol Hart
Article

Abstract

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.

Notes

Funding information

This research was funded by the University of Michigan Energy Institute as part of the Beyond Carbon Neutral initiative.

Supplementary material

10584_2019_2375_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (4.4 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 4467 kb)

References

  1. Ballantyne AG (2016) Climate change communication: what can we learn from communication theory? Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 7:329–344.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.392 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bassarak C, Pfister H-R, Böhm G (2017) Dispute and morality in the perception of societal risks: extending the psychometric model. J Risk Res 20:299–325.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2015.1043571 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Buck HJ (2016) Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social implications. Clim Chang 139:155–167.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1770-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell TH, Kay AC (2014) Solution aversion: on the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. J Pers Soc Psychol 107:809–824.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037963 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell-Arvai V, Hart PS, Raimi KT, Wolske KS (2017) The influence of learning about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on support for mitigation policies. Clim Chang 143:321–336.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2005-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Corner A, Pidgeon N (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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corner A, Pidgeon N, Parkhill K (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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Corner A, Parkhill K, Pidgeon N, Vaughan NE (2013) Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Glob Environ Chang 23:938–947.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dragojlovic N, Einsiedel E (2013a) Framing synthetic biology: evolutionary distance, conceptions of nature, and the unnaturalness objection. Sci Commun 35:547–571.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012470707 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dragojlovic N, Einsiedel E (2013b) Playing God or just unnatural? Religious beliefs and approval of synthetic biology. Public Underst Sci 22:869–885.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512445011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dreezens E, Martijn C, Tenbült P et al (2005) Food and values: an examination of values underlying attitudes toward genetically modified- and organically grown food products. Appetite 44:115–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feldpausch-Parker A, Burnham M, Melnik M et al (2015) News media analysis of carbon capture and storage and biomass: perceptions and possibilities. Energies 8:3058–3074.  https://doi.org/10.3390/en8043058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feygina I, Jost JT, Goldsmith RE (2010) System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change”. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 36:326–338.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209351435 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fridahl M, Lehtveer M (2018) Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): global potential, investment preferences, and deployment barriers. Energy Res Soc Sci 42:155–165.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.03.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansen A (2004) Tinkering with nature: discourses of “nature” in media coverage of genetics and biotechnology. Comunicação e Sociedade 6:51–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansen A (2006) Tampering with nature: “nature” and the “natural” in media coverage of genetics and biotechnology. Media Cult Soc 28:811–834.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443706067026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hartman LM (2017) Climate engineering and the playing God critique. Ethics Int Aff 31:313–333.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679417000223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach, 1st edn. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Li M, Chapman GB (2012) Why do people like natural? Instrumental and ideational bases for the naturalness preference. J Appl Soc Psychol 42:2859–2878.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00964.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol Q 52:155–194.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meadowcroft J (2013) Exploring negative territory carbon dioxide removal and climate policy initiatives. Clim Chang 118:137–149.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0684-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mercer AM, Keith DW, Sharp JD (2011) Public understanding of solar radiation management. Environ Res Lett 6:044006.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Research Council (2015) Climate intervention: carbon dioxide removal and reliable sequestration. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Pidgeon NF, Spence E (2017) Perceptions of enhanced weathering as a biological negative emissions option. Biol Lett 13:20170024.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2017.0024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Rozin P, Spranca M, Krieger Z et al (2004) Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite 43:147–154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Sanchez DL, Nelson JH, Johnston J et al (2015) Biomass enables the transition to a carbon-negative power system across western North America. Nat Clim Chang 5:230–234.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2488 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scheer D, Renn O (2014) Public perception of geoengineering and its consequences for public debate. Clim Chang 125:305–318.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1177-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Siegrist M, Sütterlin B (2014) Human and nature-caused hazards: the affect heuristic causes biased decisions. Risk Anal 34:1482–1494.  https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sjöberg L (2000) Perceived risk and tampering with nature. J Risk Res 3:353–367.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870050132568 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith P, Davis SJ, Creutzig F et al (2016) Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat Clim Chang 6:42–50.  https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2870 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sütterlin B, Siegrist M (2017) Public perception of solar radiation management: the impact of information and evoked affect. J Risk Res 20:1292–1307.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1153501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tenbült P, de Vries NK, Dreezens E, Martijn C (2005) Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite 45:47–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2005.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Vuuren DP, Deetman S, van VJ et al (2013) The role of negative CO2 emissions for reaching 2 °C—insights from integrated assessment modelling. Clim Chang 118:15–27.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0680-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A et al (2010) The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: about God, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature. J Nanopart Res 12:373–381.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-009-9809-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Visschers VHM, Shi J, Siegrist M, Arvai J (2017) Beliefs and values explain international differences in perception of solar radiation management: insights from a cross-country survey. Clim Chang 142:531–544.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1970-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wibeck V, Hansson A, Anshelm J (2015) Questioning the technological fix to climate change – lay sense-making of geoengineering in Sweden. Energy Res Soc Sci 7:23–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wright MJ, Teagle DAH, 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harris School of Public PolicyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Gerald R. Ford School of Public PolicyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.School for Environment and SustainabilityUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  4. 4.Communication Studies | Program in the EnvironmentUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations