Open AccessPublic perceptions of climate engineering: Laypersons’ acceptance at different levels of knowledge and intensities of deliberation
Author(s) -
Christine Merk,
Geraldine Klaus,
Julia Pohlers,
Andreas Ernst,
Konrad Ott,
Katrin Rehdanz
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
gaia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.563
H-Index - 28
eISSN - 2625-5413
pISSN - 0940-5550
DOI - 10.14512/gaia.28.4.6
Subject(s) - deliberation , stylized fact , global warming , nuclear decommissioning , climate change , climate change mitigation , political science , perception , jury , carbon capture and storage (timeline) , natural resource economics , business , psychology , environmental resource management , environmental science , economics , engineering , ecology , law , neuroscience , politics , biology , macroeconomics , waste management
Over the past years, new options for addressing global warming and atmospheric CO 2 -concentrations ‐ such as bioenergy carbon capture and storage ‐ have been included in computer models that estimate how much more can be emitted before the global mean temperature increase surpasses 1.5°C. While the public in general remains mainly unaware of these, similar proposals in the past have triggered public protests. The prospect of public opposition therefore calls into question the use of these options in the models.Even if societies decarbonized rapidly, it is unlikely that they will achieve the 1.5°C target without also resorting to CO 2 removal, by means, for example, of bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Such methods were included in the special report Global Warming of 1.5°C published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2018. This report also discusses solar radiation management, such as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) which might be used to change global temperatures. However, public debate about the acceptability of these methods remains absent. We look at laypersons’ perceptions of BECCS and SAI at three stylized stages of increasing knowledge and deliberation. We found a high level of uncertainty among survey respondents as to whether to accept the use of these methods, which decreases when additional information is supplied by stakeholders. When comparing survey participants to members of a citizens’ jury, we found lower levels of acceptance for SAI and similar levels for BECCS among jury members who had deliberated the methods intensively. Despite fears of distracting from the aim of reducing emissions, decision-makers should publicly discuss these methods to avoid planning based on incorrect assumptions about the political feasibility of CO 2 removal. People want to be informed about both approaches and the threat of SAI makes them focus their attention on mitigation.