Skip to main content

Perceptions of climate engineering in the South Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, and North American Arctic

Abstract

Nearly all research on public perceptions of climate engineering has been conducted in wealthy, developed countries. However, understanding perspectives from vulnerable populations is critical to inclusive, democratic debate on both research and governance. This study utilized in-depth interviews to explore the perspectives of vulnerable populations in the South Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the North American Arctic. Interviewees in this study were desperate for solutions to climate change and therefore willing to consider climate engineering. However, their willingness to consider climate engineering could be characterized as both deeply reluctant and highly conditional. Interviewees expressed a number of concerns about potential social and political implications of engineering the climate. They also described conditions that may need to be met to ensure that future climates (engineered or otherwise) are more equitable.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Of the block quotes below, 46% are from interviewees in Alaska, 33% from Kenya, and 21% from the Solomon Islands.

References

  1. African Academy of Sciences, Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (2013) Governance of research on solar geoengineering: African perspectives. Consolidated report of three workshops in Senegal, South Africa, and Ethiopia. African Academy of Sciences and Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative, Nairobi

  2. Beyerl K, Maas A (2014) Perspectives on climate engineering from Pacific small island states IASS Working Paper. Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Potsdam

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bickerstaff K, Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon NF, Poortinga W, Simmons P (2008) Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste. Public Underst Sci 17:145–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Boyd R, Stern NH, Ward B (2015) What will global annual emissions of greenhouse gases be in 2030, and will they be consistent with avoiding global warming of more than 2°C? ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London

  5. Burns ET, Flegal JA, Keith DW, Mahajan A, Tingley D, Wagner G (2016) What do people think about when they think about solar engineering? A review of empirical social science literature, and prospects for future research. Earth’s Future 4:536–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cairns R (2015) Public perceptions of geoengineering. Opinion Article, Geoengineering Our Climate Working Paper and Opinion Article Series. Available at: http://wp.me/p2zsRkbQ

  7. Carr W, Preston CJ (2017) Skewed vulnerabilities and moral corruption in global perspectives on climate engineering. Environmental Values 26(6):757–777

  8. Corner A, Pidgeon N (2015) Like artificial trees? The effect of framing by natural analogy on public perceptions of geoengineering. Clim Chang 130:425–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Corner A, Venables D, Spence A, Poortinga W, Demski C, Pidgeon N (2011) Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: exploring British public attitudes. Energy Policy 39:4823–4833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Corner A, Pidgeon N, Parkhill K (2012) Perceptions of geoengineering: public attitudes, stakeholder perspectives, and the challenge of ‘upstream’ engagement. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 3:451–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Crutzen P (2006) Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Clim Chang 77:211–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Farbotko C, Lazrus H (2012) The first climate refugees? Contesting global narratives of climate change in Tuvalu. Adding insult to injury: climate change, social stratification, and the inequities of intervention. Glob Environ Chang 22(2):382–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Flegal J, Gupta A (2017) Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? Scrutinizing emerging expert visions of equity. Int Environ Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-017-9377-6

  14. Friedman W (2007) Reframing framing. Public Agenda, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hesse-Biber SN, Leavy P (2006) The practice of qualitative research. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  16. Horton J, Keith DW (2016) Solar geoengineering and obligations to the global poor. In: Preston CJ (ed) Climate justice and geoengineering: ethics and policy in the atmospheric Anthropocene. Rowman & Littlefield International, London

    Google Scholar 

  17. IPCC (2014) Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 1–32

  18. Jasanoff S (2005) ‘Let them eat cake’: GM foods and the democratic imagination. In: Leach M, Scoones I, Wynne B (eds) Science and citizens: globalization and the challenge of engagement. Zed Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jasanoff S, Wynne B (1998) Science and decision-making. In: Rayner S, Malone E (eds) Human choice and climate change, Vol. 1. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH

    Google Scholar 

  20. Keith DW (2013) A case for climate engineering. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  21. Keith DW (2017) Toward a responsible solar geoengineering research program. Issues Sci Technol XXXIII(3)

  22. Leach M, Scoones I, Wynne B (2005) Science and citizens: globalization and the challenge of engagement. Zed Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Macnaghten P, Szerszynski B (2013) Living the global social experiment: an analysis of public discourse on solar radiation management and its implications for governance. Glob Environ Chang 23:465–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Merk C, Ponitzsch G, Kniebes C, Rehdanz K, Schmidt U (2015) Exploring public perceptions of stratospheric sulfate injection. Clim Chang 130:299–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Moreno-Cruz J, Ricke K, Keith DW (2012) A simple model to account for regional inequalities in the effectiveness of solar radiation management. Clim Chang 110(3):649–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. ND-GAIN (2014) University of Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index. www.gain.org. Accessed 18 Feb 2015

  27. Patterson ME, Williams DR (2002) Collecting and analyzing qualitative data: hermeneutic principles, methods, and case examples. Sagamore Publishing, Champaign, IL

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pidgeon N, Parkhill K, Corner A, Vaughan N (2013) Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nat Clim Chang 3:451–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Preston CJ (2012) Solar radiation management and vulnerable populations: the moral deficit and it prospects. In: Preston CJ (ed) Engineering the climate: the ethics of solar radiation management. Lexington Books, Lanham, MD

    Google Scholar 

  30. Rubin HJ, Rubin I (2005) Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Stilgoe J (2015) Experiment earth: responsible innovation in geoengineering. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  32. Suarez P, van Aalst MK (2017) Geoengineering: a humanitarian concern. Earth’s Future 5:183–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Suarez P, Banerjee B, de Suarez JM (2013) Geoengineering and the humanitarian challenge: What role for the most vulnerable? Geoengineering Our Climate Working Paper and Opinion Article Series. Available at: http://wp.me/p2zsRk-8H

  34. Sugiyama M, Kosgi T, Ishii A, Asayama S (2016) Public attitudes to climate engineering research and field experiments: preliminary results of a web survey on students’ perception in six Asia-Pacific countries. Policy Alternatives Research Institute. Working Paper No. 24

  35. Walmsley H (2009) Mad scientists bend the frame of biobank governance in British Columbia. J Public Deliberation 5:6

  36. Washington Geoengineering Consortium (2013) A civil society meeting on geoengineering: summary and synthesis. Washington Geoengineering Consortium, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  37. Whyte KP (2012) Now this! Indigenous sovereignty, political obliviousness and governance models for SRM research. Ethics, Policy Environ 15:172–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Winickoff DE, Flegal JA, Asrat A (2015) Engaging the global south on climate engineering research. Nat Clim Chang 5:627–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wynne B (2005) Risk as globalizing ‘democratic’ discourse? Framing subjects and citizens. In: Leach M, Scoones I, Wynne B (eds) Science and citizens: globalization and the challenge of engagement. Zed Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wylie A. Carr.

Additional information

The research presented in this article was conducted by Wylie Carr when he was a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Montana. This publication has not been formally reviewed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The views expressed in this article are those of W. Carr and L. Yung and do not necessarily reflect those of the FWS. The FWS does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carr, W.A., Yung, L. Perceptions of climate engineering in the South Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, and North American Arctic. Climatic Change 147, 119–132 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2138-x

Download citation