Reviewing the existing studies of public perception and drawing analogies from other risk technologies, this paper explores the public positions on research and implementation of geoengineering as a means to combat climate change. Existing studies on geoengineering perceptions show low levels of awareness and a lack of knowledge. Hence, existing attitudes on geoengineering can be judged instable and stimulus-dependent. When judged in isolation, at least one third favors the use of geoengineering technologies preferring CDR over SRM technologies; when judged in comparison to other climate mitigation options, approval rates lose considerably support. Moreover, people seem to cautiously support research but oppose deployment while attitude formation depends on personal values and belief systems. The results of the empirical studies were fed into a Delphi workshop with experts for reflecting on the future development of public opinion and for designing a communication and public involvement process that corresponds to the empirical insights gained from the perception studies.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Banerjee B (2011) The limitations of geoengineering governance in a world of uncertainty. Stanford J Law, Sci Pol 4:15–27
Bellamy R, Hulme M (2011) Beyond the tipping point: understanding perceptions of abrupt climate change and their implications. Weather Clim Soc 3:48–60
Benarie M (1988) Delphi and Delphi-like approaches with special regard to environmental standard setting. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 33:149–158
Bishop GF, Oldendick RW, Tuchfarber AJ, Bennett SE (1980) Pseudo-opinions on public affairs. Public Opin Q 44:198–209
Bipartisan Policy Center Task Force on Climate Remediation Research (2011) Geoengineering: a national strategic plan for research on the potential effectiveness, feasibility, and consequences of climate remediation technologies. Bipartisan Policy Center, Washington DC
Borick C, Rabe B (2012) Americans cool on geoengineering. Approaches to addressing climate change. Issues Gov Stud 46:1–7
Bostrom A, O’Connor RE, Böhm G, Hanss D, Bodi O, Ekström F, Halder P, Jeschke S, Mack B, Qu M, Rosentrater L, Sandve A, Sælensminde I (2012) Causal thinking and support for climate change policies: international survey findings. Glob Environ Chang 22(1):210–22. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.09.012
Bunzl M (2008) An ethical assessment of geoengineering. Bull At Sci 64:18
Converse PE (1970) Attitudes and non-attitudes: continuation of a dialogue. In: Tufte ER (ed) The quantitative analysis of social problems. Addison-Wesley, Reading, pp 168–189
Corner A, Pidgeon N, Parkhill K (2012) Perceptions of geoengineering: public attitudes, stakeholder perspectives, and the challenge of “upstream” engagement. WIREs Clim Chang 3:451–466
Corner A, Parkhill K, Pidgeon N, Vaughan NE (2013) Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Global Environmental Change, 1–10, DOI:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.06.002
Crutzen P (2006) Albedo enhancements by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma. Climate Change 77:211–20
Feetham P, Wright M, Comrie M, Teagle D (2012) Public reaction to climate geoengineering: An exploratory study. Presented at Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy [ANZMAC] Conference. Adelaide, SA, Australia.
GAO (2011) Climate engineering: Technical status, future directions, and potential responses. United States Government Accountability Office, Washington
Hill KQ, Fowles J (1975) The methodological worth of the Delphi forecasting technique. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 7:179–192
Ipsos-MORI (2010) Experiment Earth: report on a public dialogue on geoengineering. Natural Environment Research Council, Swindon
Kahan D, Jenkins-Smith H, Tarantola T, Silva CL, Braman D. (2014) Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication. Annals of American Academy of Political & Social Science (in press)
Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Smith N. Climate Change in the American Mind: Americans’ Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in June 2010. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication,2010
Macnaghten P, Szerszynskic B (2013) Living the global social experiment: an analysis of public discourse on solar radiation management and its implications for governance. Glob Environ Chang 23(2):465–74. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.008
Marchetti C (1976) On Geo-engineering and the CO2 problem. IIASA Research Memorandum. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg
Mayo-Ramsay J (2010) Environmental, legal and social implications of ocean urea fertilization: Sulu sea example. Mar Policy 34:831–835
McClellan J, Sisco J, Suarez B, Keogh G (2010) Geoengineering cost analysis, Report. Aurora Flight Sciences Corporation: Manasses (VA), http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/Misc/AuroraGeoReport.pdf, Accessed 26. November 2012
Mercer AM, Keith DW, Sharp JD (2011) Public understanding of solar radiation management. Environ Res Letters 6:044006. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044006
Mintroff IL, Turoff M (1975) Philosophical and methodological foundations of Delphi. In: Linstone HA, Turoff M (eds) The Delphi method. Addison-Wesley, Reading, pp 17–36
NAS Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1992) Policy implications of greenhouse warming: mitigation, adaptation, and the science base. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Parkhill K, Pidgeon N (2011) Public engagement on geoengineering research: preliminary report on the SPICE deliberative workshops. Cardiff University, Understanding Risk Working Paper
Pidgeon N, Corner A, Parkhill K, Spence AA, Butler C, Poortinga W (2012) Exploring early public responses to geoengineering. Philosophical transactions of the royal society of London series a. Math Phys Sci 370:4176–4196
Pidgeon N, Parkhill K, Corner AJ, Vaughan N (2013) Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nat Clim Chang 3:451–457
Preston C (ed) (2012) Engineering the climate. The ethics of solar radiation management. Lanham, Lexington, KT
Renn O, Brachatzek N, Hiller S (2011) Climate Engineering: Risikowahrnehmung, gesellschaftliche Risikodiskurse und Optionen der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung, Stuttgart: Universität ZIRIUS, http://www.kiel-earth-institute.de/sondierungsstudie-climate-engineering/articles/sondierungsstudie-climate-engineering-25.html?file=tl_files/downloads/risikowahrnehmung.pdf, Accessed 7. May 2014
Renn O, Webler T (1998) Der kooperative Diskurs - Theoretische Grundlagen, Anforderungen, Möglichkeiten. In: Renn O, Kastenholz H, Schild P, Wilhelm U (ed.) Abfallpolitik im kooperativen Diskurs. Bürgerbeteiligung bei der Standortsuche für eine Deponie im Kanton Aargau, Hochschulverlag: Zuerich, Switzerland,, pp. 3–103.
Ricke KL, Rowlands DJ, Ingram WJ, Keith DW, Morgan MG (2011) Effectiveness of stratospheric solar-radiation management as a function of climate sensitivity. Nat Clim Chang 2:92–96
Rickels W, Klepper G, Dovern J, Betz G, Brachatzek N, Cacean S, Güssow K, Heintzenberg J, Hiller S, Hoose C, Leisner T, Oschlies A, Platt U, Proeiß A, Renn O, Schäfer S, Zürn M (2011) Large-scale intentional interventions into the climate system: Assessing the climate engineering debate. Sondierungsstudie. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, BMBF: Bonn, Germany
Schulz M, Renn O (eds) (2009) Das Gruppendelphi. Konzept und Fragebogenkonstruktion. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften VS. Wiesbaden, Germany
Spence A, Venables D, Pidgeon N, Poortinga W, Demski C (2010) Public perceptions of climate change and energy futures in Britain: Summary findings of a survey conducted in January-March 2010. Technical Report (Understanding Risk Working Paper 10–01). School of Psychology, Cardiff
Stolaroff JK (2006) Capturing CO2 from ambient air: A feasibility assessment. Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh
The Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance, and uncertainty. Royal Society Press, London
University of Montana (2012): Ethics of geoengineering online resource center: Bibliography. Missola. MT, http://www.umt.edu/ethics/resourcecenter/bibliography/default.php, Accessed 19. November 2012
Webler T, Levine D, Rakel H, Renn O (1991) The group Delphi: a novel attempt at reducing uncertainty. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 39(3):253–263
Zeebe RE, Archer D (2005) Feasibility of ocean fertilisation and its impact on future atmospheric CO2 levels. Geophys Res Lett. doi:10.1029/2005GL022449
Wright MJ, Teagle DAH, Feetham PM (2014) A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering. Nat Clim Chang 4:106–110
The authors want to thank all participating experts for their help. They also wish to acknowledge the meaningful comments and reviews of anonymous referees and the support of Climatic Change editors. This research was made possible through funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.
About this article
Cite this article
Scheer, D., Renn, O. Public Perception of geoengineering and its consequences for public debate. Climatic Change 125, 305–318 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1177-1
- Solar Radiation Management
- Sulphur Particle
- Carbon Dioxide Removal
- Cloud Seeding
- Climate Engineering