Skip to main content

The public remain uninformed and wary of climate engineering

Climatic Change volume 160, pages 303–322 (2020)Cite this article

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, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    Internet access across the four samples is as follows: 90% in the UK (Office for National Statistics 2018), 84% in the US (Ryan and Lewis 2017), 86% in Australia (Australia Bureau of Statistics 2017) and 94% in New Zealand (Díaz Andrade et al. 2018).

References

  1. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson JR, Bower GH (1974) Human associative memory. Wiley, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bellamy R, Lezaun J (2017) Crafting a public for geoengineering. Public Underst Sci 26:402–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515600965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Corner A, Pidgeon NF (2010) Geoengineering the climate: the social and ethical implications. Environment 52:24–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139150903479563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Corner A, Parkhill KA, Pidgeon NF (2011) ‘Experiment earth?’ Reflections on a public dialogue on geoengineering: reflections on a public dialogue on geoengineering

  21. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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

  25. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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

  30. 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

  31. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. National Academies of Science (2015a) Climate intervention: carbon dioxide removal and reliable sequestration. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  42. National Academies of Science (2015b) Climate intervention: reflecting sunlight to cool earth. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  43. 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

  44. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Romaniuk J (2013) Modeling mental market share. J Bus Res 66:188–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.07.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms 30:251–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Royal Society, Royal Academy of Engineering (2018) Greenhouse gas removal

  50. Ryan C, Lewis JM (2017) Computer and internet use in the United States: 2015. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC

  51. 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

  52. Scarrow R (2019) Nuanced views. Nature Sustain 2:441–441. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0318-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sharp B (2010) How brands grow: what marketers don't know. Oxford University Press, Melbourne, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  55. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. UNEP (2018) The emissions gap report 2018. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  59. 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

  60. Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London

    Google Scholar 

  61. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wright M, Klÿn B (1998) Environmental attitude behaviour correlations in 21 countries. J Empir Gen Mark Sci 3:42–60

    Google Scholar 

  63. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Affiliations

  1. School of Communication, Journalism and Marketing, Massey University, Tennent Drive, Palmerston North, 4410, New Zealand

    Daniel P. Carlisle & Pamela M. Feetham

  2. School of Communication Journalism and Marketing, Massey University, Dairy Flat Highway, Albany, Auckland, 0632, New Zealand

    Malcolm J. Wright

  3. Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science, University of South Australia, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia, 5000, Australia

    Malcolm J. Wright

  4. School of Ocean & Earth Science, National Oceanography Centre Southampton, University of Southampton, European Way, Southampton, SO14-3ZH, UK

    Damon A. H. Teagle

Authors
  1. Daniel P. Carlisle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pamela M. Feetham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Malcolm J. Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Damon A. H. Teagle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

Correspondence to Daniel P. Carlisle.

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

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Public engagement
  • Climate engineering
  • Geoengineering
  • Cross-country
  • Framing effects