Public perceptions of climate geoengineering: a systematic review of the literature

Cummings, Christopher; Lin, Sapphire Huili; Trump, Benjamin D.

doi:10.3354/cr01475

Cited by 43 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the earliest studies, which does distinguish between different sources of CO 2 , [9], found that fossil fuel sources of CO 2 were perceived less favourably by survey respondents than industrial or bioenergy sources. Whilst research has started to consider different applications for carbon capture (e.g., carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) [10]), we found that BECCS is often compared with other CDR technologies (e.g., [11]), or other sources of CO 2, (e.g., [12,13]) rather than considered on its own. More favourable responses to CCS have been observed when it is combined with bioenergy and increased support has been reported for CCU-notably amongst climate sceptics, for whom addressing concerns about waste carried greater traction than climate change mitigation [10].…”

Section: Beccs Is Part Of the Ccs Familymentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Social Acceptability: Applying Lessons from CCS Social Science to Support Deployment of BECCS

Gough¹,

Mander²

2019

Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review This paper assesses social science research relating to BECCS and considers the applicability of research on CCS to BECCS. Recent Findings In recent years, social science research on CCS and BECCS has gone beyond an evaluation of public acceptance to provide a more nuanced analysis of the wider social political, ethical, and governance contexts in which large-scale deployment might be achieved. This raises issues at global, local, and regional scales, requiring a wide array of methods and approaches. Summary Awareness of the scale and urgency needed to act on climate change is growing and the role of BECCS in delivering carbon dioxide removal forms a central argument for the use of this family of technologies. Here, framing becomes a critical factor in how society responds to BECCS technologies and we argue that making the case for BECCS as a means of extending mitigation to make a 'net zero' goal achievable could be the key to its acceptable and sustainable deployment. Keywords CCS. BECCS. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Negative emissions. Social responses. Acceptability This article is part of the Topical Collection on Deep Decarbonization: BECCS

show abstract

Section: Beccs Is Part Of the Ccs Familymentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Social Acceptability: Applying Lessons from CCS Social Science to Support Deployment of BECCS

Gough¹,

Mander²

2019

Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although existing scientific literature on GGR is heavily weighted toward the natural and physical sciences (Belter & Seidel, 2013; Minx et al, 2018), the overwhelming majority of papers in the literature corpus exhibit concerns about the social and political acceptability of BECCS and AR. Articles focusing on social and political acceptability typically articulate feasibility challenges in terms of “barriers” to policy decisions and support for technology adoption (see discussion in Buck, 2016; Campbell‐Arvai, Hart, Raimi, & Wolske, 2017; Cummings et al, 2017). The question of the social and political acceptability of GGR can, in narrower versions, overlap techno‐economic framings that assume the central barriers to GGR approaches such as BECCS and AR lie in their deployment in society.…”

Section: Three Framings Of Ggr and Its Feasibilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contested framings of greenhouse gas removal and its feasibility: Social and political dimensions

Waller

Rayner

Chilvers

et al. 2020

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prospective approaches for large‐scale greenhouse gas removal (GGR) are now central to the post‐2020 international commitment to pursue efforts to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C. However, the feasibility of large‐scale GGR has been repeatedly questioned. Most systematic analyses focus only on the physical, technical, and economic challenges of deploying it at scale. However, social and political dimensions will be just as important, if not more so, to how possible futures play out. We conduct one of the first reviews of the international peer‐reviewed literature pertaining to the social and political dimensions of large‐scale GGR, with a specific focus on two predominant approaches: Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and afforestation/reforestation (AR). Our analysis of 78 studies proposes two important insights. First, it shows how six key social and political dimensions of GGR feasibility–namely economics and incentives; innovation; societal engagement; governance; complexity and uncertainty; and ethics, equity, and justice–are identifiable and are emphasized to varying degrees in the literature. Second, there are three contested ways in which BECCS and AR and their feasibility are being framed in the literature: (a) a techno‐economic framing; (b) a social and political acceptability framing; and (c) a responsible development framing. We suggest this third frame will, and indeed should, become increasingly pertinent to the assessment, innovation, and governance of climate futures. This article is categorized under: The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Policies, Instruments, Lifestyles, Behavior.

show abstract

“…Public response to the application of GMOs has been decidedly mixed (Lucht, 2015) and in some cases has led to bans and limiting regulation. Similarly, public response to ocean fertilization experiments and solar radiation management studies has been strong and much of it negative (Abate and Greenlee, 2010;Cummins et al, 2017), greatly complicating future attempts to deploy these approaches.…”

Section: All the Ragementioning

confidence: 99%

Engineered CO2 Removal, Climate Restoration, and Humility

Friedmann

2019

Front. Clim.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past 200 years, humans have dramatically altered our global environmental envelope accidentally through uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions. Humans have also developed the technology to both stop emitting greenhouse gases and ultimately to remove them from the atmosphere through a combination of natural and engineered pathways. Ultimately, humanity must practice CO 2 removal in addition to maximal reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through conventional mitigation to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and ultimately net-negative emissions. To accomplish this task will require enormous sums of money and substantial cooperation between groups of people who commonly do not work together: technical experts, financiers, and government officials. In addition to heightened and accelerated ambition, humility is required as well. The task requires frequent and extended achievement in arenas that many scientists and engineers commonly understand only tangentially (e.g., lawmaking, regulatory enforcement, and project finance).

show abstract

Public perceptions of climate geoengineering: a systematic review of the literature

Cited by 43 publications

References 60 publications

Beyond Social Acceptability: Applying Lessons from CCS Social Science to Support Deployment of BECCS

Beyond Social Acceptability: Applying Lessons from CCS Social Science to Support Deployment of BECCS

Contested framings of greenhouse gas removal and its feasibility: Social and political dimensions

Engineered CO2 Removal, Climate Restoration, and Humility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About