Exploring early public responses to geoengineering

Abstract

Proposals for geoengineering the Earth's climate are prime examples of emerging or 'upstream' technologies, because many aspects of their effectiveness, cost and risks are yet to be researched, and in many cases are highly uncertain. This paper contributes to the emerging debate about the social acceptability of geoengineering technologies by presenting preliminary evidence on public responses to geoengineering from two of the very first UK studies of public perceptions and responses. The discussion draws upon two datasets: qualitative data (from an interview study conducted in 42 households in 2009), and quantitative data (from a subsequent nationwide survey (n = 1822) of British public opinion). Unsurprisingly, baseline awareness of geoengineering was extremely low in both cases. The data from the survey indicate that, when briefly explained to people, carbon dioxide removal approaches were preferred to solar radiation management, while significant positive correlations were also found between concern about climate change and support for different geoengineering approaches. We discuss some of the wider considerations that are likely to shape public perceptions of geoengineering as it enters the media and public sphere, and conclude that, aside from technical considerations, public perceptions are likely to prove a key element influencing the debate over questions of the acceptability of geoengineering proposals.

Is the future of meat palatable? Perceptions ofin vitromeat as evidenced by online news comments

“…Some researchers also noted there is a 'yuck factor' related to the perceived unnaturalness and technological nature of IVM (20,22) . The suggestion of perceived unnaturalness is very much in line with empirical data on public perceptions of other emerging technologies, such as geoengineering and GM organisms (23)(24)(25) . Possible perceptions of unnaturalness are of particular interest given the success that food activists had with labelling GM organisms as 'Frankenfoods' in their efforts to prevent adoption of GM organisms in Europe (26) .…”

“…The rejection of the unnatural is also well established with regard to other technological innovations such as geoengineering and GM organisms (23,24,43) . As per Frewer et al (25) (p. 452), 'manipulating food and animals using "unnatural" biological techniques seem to strike a major negative, fundamental chord with many people…'.…”

Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project

“…This included safety for humans -those operating the test bed, in close proximity to the test, or who might otherwise be impactedand wider environment/ecosystems. Whilst some of these concerns might seem straightforward to address, these data demonstrate how associations with other risk issues, personal memories, and experiences are likely to form the basis of people's initial 'mental models' when they encounter geoengineering for the very first time 31 . For example, some participants wished to know if the balloon gas would be flammable, making reference to the Hindenburg disaster in 1937.…”

Living the global social experiment: An analysis of public discourse on solar radiation management and its implications for governance

“…Second, even though existing research has highlighted public concerns over the unintended consequences of solar radiation management (Corner and Pidgeon 2010;Pidgeon et al, 2012), we go further to suggest that solar radiation management has a distinctive and constitutive relationship with uncertainty. With most technologies, it is the side-effects that are likely to be hard to predict and difficult to attribute, because of the way that they often depend on stochastic processes.…”

“…Fourthly, it is assumed that new institutional arrangements for the proper regulation of geoengineering can in principle be built on existing international instruments used to regulate transboundary issues, and more generally can be accommodated within the structures of democratic national and international governance (see discussion in Virgoe, 2 2009). Fifthly, it is assumed that survey, qualitative and public engagement research can help clarify public attitudes to solar radiation management (see Ipsos-MORI, 2010;Leiserowitz et al, 2010;Mercer et al, 2011;Parkhill and Pidgeon, 2011;Pidgeon et al, 2012;Poumadere et al, 2011;Spence et al, 2010), and that the main role of such research should be to incorporate value-based considerations about geoengineering into decision-making (see Corner et al, 2012 for a review). Notwithstanding the importance of such research, what has been insufficiently explored is how public engagement methods can be used to explore the kinds of world that solar radiation management techniques might bring into being, and thereby to critically explore the assumptions that underpin governance debates around this technology.…”