CITE.CC academic search helps you expand the influence of your papers.
Abstract
Climate engineering could support conventional mitigation policies but is potentially a controversial approach; therefore, understanding the public’s concerns about its adoption before decisions are made is important. Now research that draws on methods used by corporations to evaluate brands shows that the overall public evaluation of climate engineering is negative. Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, with CO2 passing 400 parts per million in May 2013. To avoid severe climate change and the attendant economic and social dislocation, existing energy efficiency and emissions control initiatives may need support from some form of climate engineering. As climate engineering will be controversial, there is a pressing need to inform the public and understand their concerns before policy decisions are taken. So far, engagement has been exploratory, small-scale or technique-specific. We depart from past research to draw on the associative methods used by corporations to evaluate brands. A systematic, quantitative and comparative approach for evaluating public reaction to climate engineering is developed. Its application reveals that the overall public evaluation of climate engineering is negative. Where there are positive associations they favour carbon dioxide removal (CDR) over solar radiation management (SRM) techniques. Therefore, as SRM techniques become more widely known they are more likely to elicit negative reactions. Two climate engineering techniques, enhanced weathering and cloud brightening, have indistinct concept images and so are less likely to draw public attention than other CDR or SRM techniques.Cite this article
Wright, M., Teagle, D. & Feetham, P. A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering. Nature Clim Change 4, 106–110 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2087 