Fast, cheap, and imperfect? US public opinion about solar geoengineering

Mahajan, Aseem; Tingley, Dustin; Wagner, Gernot

doi:10.1080/09644016.2018.1479101

Cited by 44 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mahajan et al (2017) analyzes the CCES results more broadly and provides information on general attitudes toward solar geoengineering use and research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media

Tingley

Wagner²

2017

Palgrave Commun

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discourse on social media of solar geoengineering has been rapidly increasing over the past decade, in line with increased attention by the scientific community and low but increasing awareness among the general public. The topic has also found increased attention online. But unlike scientific discourse, a majority of online discussion focuses on the so-called chemtrails conspiracy theory, the widely debunked idea that airplanes are spraying a toxic mix of chemicals through contrails, with supposed goals ranging from weather to mind control. This paper presents the results of a nationally representative 1000-subject poll part of the 36,000-subject 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), and an analysis of the universe of social media mentions of geoengineering. The former shows~10% of Americans declaring the chemtrails conspiracy as "completely" and a further~20-30% as "somewhat" true, with no apparent difference by party affiliation or strength of partisanship.Conspiratorial views have accounted for~60% of geoengineering discourse on social media over the past decade. Of that, Twitter has accounted for >90%, compared to~75% of total geoengineering mentions. Further affinity analysis reveals a broad online community of conspiracy. Anonymity of social media appears to help its spread, so does the general ease of spreading unverified or outright false information. Online behavior has important real-world reverberations, with implications for climate science communication and policy.

show abstract

“…Mahajan et al (2017) analyzes the CCES results more broadly and provides information on general attitudes toward solar geoengineering use and research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media

Tingley

Wagner²

2017

Palgrave Commun

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…SRM has been described as "fast, cheap, and imperfect" [1]. Some computer-based modeling and studies of natural analogues (most notably volcanic eruptions) have suggested that planetary-scale SAI, in particular, could generate rapid and, depending on the magnitude of an intervention, dramatic cooling [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing Climate Engineering: A Proposal for Immediate Governance of Solar Radiation Management

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Solar radiation management (SRM) technologies would reflect a small amount of incoming solar radiation back into space before the radiation can warm the planet. Although SRM may emerge as a useful component of a global response to climate change, there is also good reason for caution. In June 2017, the Academic Working Group on Climate Engineering Governance released a policy report, "Governing Solar Radiation Management", which developed a set of objectives to govern SRM in the near-term future: (1) keep mitigation and adaptation first; (2) thoroughly and transparently evaluate risks, burdens, and benefits; (3) enable responsible knowledge creation; and (4) ensure robust governance before any consideration of deployment. To advance the governance objectives identified above, the working group developed twelve recommendations, grouped into three clusters: (1) create politically legitimate deliberative bodies; (2) leverage existing institutions; and (3) make research transparent and accountable. This communication discusses the rationale behind each cluster and elaborates on a subset of the recommendations from each cluster.

show abstract

“…With a few notable exceptions (e.g. BPC, 2011;Craik, 2017;Craik, Blackstock, & Hubert, 2013;Winickoff & Brown, 2013;Mahajan, Tingley, & Wagner, 2018;US GAO, 2010;Stilgoe, Owen, & Macnaghten, 2013), the role of domestic politics and institutions for SRM governance has received comparatively little attention. This is surprising given the broader devolutionary trend in the climate governance literature with, for example, the increased attention to city-level governance (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward Legitimate Governance of Solar Geoengineering Research: A Role for Sub-State Actors

Jinnah

Nicholson

Flegal³

2018

Ethics, Policy & Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two recently proposed solar radiation management (SRM) experiments in the United States have highlighted the need for governance mechanisms to guide SRM research. This paper draws on the literatures on legitimacy in global governance, responsible innovation, and experimental governance to argue that public engagement is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for any legitimate SRM governance regime. We then build on the orchestration literature to argue that, in the absence of federal leadership, U.S. states, such as California, New York, and other existing leaders in climate governance more broadly have an important role to play in the near-term development of SRM research governance. Specifically, we propose that one or more U.S. states should establish a new interdisciplinary advisory commission to oversee and review the governance of SRM research in their states. Centrally, we propose that state-level advisory commissions on SRM research could help build legitimacy in SRM research decisions through the inclusion of, at minimum: meaningful public engagement early in the research design process; an iterative and reflexive mechanism for learning and improving both participatory governance mechanisms and broader SRM governance goals over time; as well as mechanisms for adaptation and diffusion of governance mechanisms across jurisdictions and scales.

show abstract

Fast, cheap, and imperfect? US public opinion about solar geoengineering

Cited by 44 publications

References 63 publications

Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media

Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media

Governing Climate Engineering: A Proposal for Immediate Governance of Solar Radiation Management

Toward Legitimate Governance of Solar Geoengineering Research: A Role for Sub-State Actors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About