Psychological factors influencing laypersons’ acceptance of climate engineering, climate change mitigation and business as usual scenarios

Klaus, Geraldine; Ernst, Andreas; Oswald, Lisa

doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101222

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The standard deviation for stratospheric aerosol injection stands out as the highest of any of the options, whereas albedo management via clouds, conversely, is the lowest. Given that SRM options were ranked against one another, and not against CDR options, it is not possible to identify a pattern where SRM options such as stratospheric aerosol injection tend to be slightly less preferable, which is typical for public perceptions (Braun et al 2018 ; Jobin and Siegrist 2020 ; Wright et al 2014 ; Carlisle et al 2020 ; Pidgeon et al 2012 ; Bellamy et al 2016 ; Merk et al 2019 ; Klaus et al 2020 ). At the same time, the greater heterogeneity of expert opinion, especially with regard to stratospheric aerosol injection, mirrors the tendency for public evaluations to vary depending on the amount of information provided, mode of discussion, and over time (Braun et al 2018 ; Carlisle et al 2020 ; Merk et al 2019 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determining our climate policy future: expert opinions about negative emissions and solar radiation management pathways

Sovacool

Baum

Low

2022

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Negative emissions technologies and solar radiation management techniques could contribute towards climate stability, either by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it permanently or reflecting sunlight away from the atmosphere. Despite concerns about them, such options are increasingly being discussed as crucial complements to traditional climate change mitigation and adaptation. Expectations around negative emissions and solar radiation management and their associated risks and costs shape public and private discussions of how society deals with the climate crisis. In this study, we rely on a large expert survey (N = 74) to critically examine the future potential of both negative emission options (e.g., carbon dioxide removal) and solar radiation management techniques. We designed a survey process that asked a pool of prominent experts questions about (i) the necessity of adopting negative emissions or solar radiation management options, (ii) the desirability of such options when ranked against each other, (iii) estimations of future efficacy in terms of temperature reductions achieved or gigatons of carbon removed, (iv) expectations about future scaling, commercialization, and deployment targets, and (v) potential risks and barriers. Unlike other elicitation processes where experts are more positive or have high expectations about novel options, our results are more critical and cautionary. We find that some options (notably afforestation and reforestation, ecosystem restoration, and soil carbon sequestration) are envisioned frequently as necessary, desirable, feasible, and affordable, with minimal risks and barriers (compared to other options). This contrasts with other options envisaged as unnecessary risky or costly, notably ocean alkalization or fertilization, space-based reflectors, high-altitude sunshades, and albedo management via clouds. Moreover, only the options of afforestation and reforestation and soil carbon sequestration are expected to be widely deployed before 2035, which raise very real concerns about climate and energy policy in the near- to mid-term.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determining our climate policy future: expert opinions about negative emissions and solar radiation management pathways

Sovacool

Baum

Low

2022

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The scale used a five‐point Likert scale (from ‘Applied completely’ to ‘Does not apply at all’). At the time of its development, the reliability was α = 0.653 and was measured at the time of this study as α = 0.687 (Klaus et al., 2020 ; Kovaleva, 2012 ); The General Self‐Efficacy Scale (GSE‐10) where participants self‐rate themselves against 10 questions which examine self‐efficacy, the general belief in an individual's ability to respond to difficult situations, obstacles and setbacks. The scale used a five‐point Likert scale (from ‘Exactly true’ to ‘Not at all true’).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The scale used a fivepoint Likert scale (from 'Applied completely' to 'Does not apply at all'). At the time of its development, the reliability was α = 0.653 and was measured at the time of this study as α = 0.687 (Klaus et al, 2020;Kovaleva, 2012);…”

Section: Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 97%

The mechanisms of student grit at the height of a major crisis: Identifying key predictors when times get really tough

Terry,

Peck,

Biangone

2023

Nursing Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimThe study aims to provide insights into the key predictors of grit both before, during and throughout a common crisis event, where other more individualised challenges may not provide these insights.DesignA repeated cross‐sectional design.MethodsData were collected via an anonymous questionnaire among n = 818 (20.8% response rate) nursing students who were undertaking a three‐year baccalaureate degree. Data collection occurred in the mid‐year break of 2019, 2020 and 2021. The online questionnaire, which examined student demographics, personality, locus of control‐4, general self‐efficacy, psychological capital and grit, took 15–25 min to complete. Data were prepared and analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences to undertake Structural Equation Modelling. Reporting methods adhered to the STROBE guidelines.ResultsThe pathway models of grit prior to, at the time of, and after the global pandemic varied slightly as to their predictor variables, however, neuroticism was consistently present. Locus of control and psychological capital also varied over this period with hope having a positive impact, prior to and after the initial crisis, however, negatively impacted grit afterwards. Understanding the key drivers of grit, particularly those essential at or around the time of a crisis guides our understanding of how to better support nursing or healthcare students. These insights enable a greater focus of energies towards malleable attributes that can increase grit levels and better fortify nursing students for challenges they may encounter in practice. These insights also serve to further prepare healthcare, emergency, or other professionals who may encounter regular crises. Within months of a global pandemic occurring, the key predictors of grit were shown to fundamentally alter. Each pathway model varied slightly suggesting the timing of a crisis impacts students' capacity to manage new or novel situations, with hope as a key driver of grit throughout a crisis.

show abstract

“…We do this by directly comparing support for individual CDR and SRM technologies, along with verifying previously identi ed predictors, with support for promoting GE over institutional-level mitigation, i.e., moral hazard beliefs. While previous studies such as Klaus et al (2020) have compared separate groups' responses to a mitigation scenario and GE scenarios, we have yet to see a study that asks all respondents to directly compare their preferences for mitigation, geoengineering, and other climate actions. By analyzing responses to this comparative question, our study uniquely allows us to identify contexts in which moral hazard or reverse moral hazard may arise.…”

Section: A Moral Hazard Contingency Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contingencies of Climate Geoengineering and Moral Hazard

Sie

Brechin

Borick

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geoengineering (GE) represents technologies designed to address the impacts of climate change. Two major research priorities have emerged. The first is the public’s understanding of and preferences for specific GE approaches and their perceived risks. The second is the moral hazard potential, or the preference for technological fixes that may disincentivize mitigation efforts focused on eliminating reliance on fossil fuels. We extend current research to explore the US public’s preferences for different GE approaches, and whether they predict moral hazard beliefs. We use data from the 2020 National Survey on Energy and the Environment, a nationally representative survey, and employ multinominal logistic regressions to examine the factors that predict prioritization of GE over mitigation. Our findings begin to solve the moral hazard riddle, suggesting a contingency model. We find that trust in scientists, conservative political beliefs, being non-White, and support for stratospheric aerosol injections and ambient air capture positively predicted selecting GE over standard mitigation efforts. The findings suggest that within the US context, moral hazard concerns should be directed towards a specific contingency. Moral hazard may also only be a concern for those who have lower climate risk perceptions but are forced to make climate policy choices. Further research is needed to explain the potential drivers of moral hazard beliefs, both in the US as well as beyond North American and OECD countries.

show abstract

Psychological factors influencing laypersons’ acceptance of climate engineering, climate change mitigation and business as usual scenarios

Cited by 13 publications

References 67 publications

Determining our climate policy future: expert opinions about negative emissions and solar radiation management pathways

Determining our climate policy future: expert opinions about negative emissions and solar radiation management pathways

The mechanisms of student grit at the height of a major crisis: Identifying key predictors when times get really tough

Contingencies of Climate Geoengineering and Moral Hazard

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About