What do people think when they think about solar geoengineering? A review of empirical social science literature, and prospects for future research

Abstract

Public views and values about solar geoengineering should be incorporated in science-policy decisions, if decision makers want to act in the public interest. In reflecting on the past decade of research, we review around 30 studies investigating public familiarity with, and views about, solar geoengineering. A number of recurring patterns emerge: (1) general unfamiliarity with geoengineering among publics; (2) the importance of artifice versus naturalness; (3) some conditional support for certain kinds of research; and (4) nuanced findings on the "moral hazard" and "reverse moral hazard" hypotheses, with empirical support for each appearing under different circumstances and populations. We argue that in the coming decade, empirical social science research on solar geoengineering will be crucial, and should be integrated with physical scientific research.

Stopping the Flood: Could We Use Targeted Geoengineering to Mitigate Sea Level Rise?

“…and empirical support for the moral hazard hypothesis within the social science literature is mixed (Burns et al, 2016). Properly contextualized discussion of geoengineering can actually increase concern for climate change (Kahan et al, 2015;Merk et al, 2016), consistent with other research demonstrating that positive, practical, or solution-based messaging is more effective at communicating climate science than negative, apocalyptic, or fear-based messaging (O'Neill and Nicholson-Cole, 2009;Feinberg and Willer, 2011).…”

Making sense of climate engineering: a focus group study of lay publics in four countries

“…Corner and Pidgeon 2010: 32), this paper contributes further insights into similarities and variations in how lay sense-making occurred (cf. Burns et al 2016;Davies 2011) by analysing how analogies and metaphors served as tools for the focus group participants in grappling with ontological, epistemological and ethical aspects of climate engineering. As such, analogies and metaphors were key communicative resources in the focus groups, serving at least three types of rhetorical purposes.…”

“…McLaren et al 2016), outlining a scenario in which the poorest, already most vulnerable groups might become the subjects of climate engineering experimentation, and the risk that investing time and money in climate engineering research would displace investments in mitigation and adaptation (cf. Burns et al 2016).…”

Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? Scrutinizing emerging expert visions of equity

“…The viability of this separation has also been critiqued in public engagement exercises that suggest that the science and governance of solar geoengineering are often entangled (for a review, see Burns et al 2016), and thatespecially if justifications for responsible research rest on managing risks on behalf of the global poor-institutionalizing broader inclusion upstream is desirable.…”