Negative emission technologies (NETs) or the drawdown of atmospheric carbon is increasingly essential to meeting climate targets. Many options (e.g., afforestation) may not however meet the scale of removal and permanence of storage needed. Scientists and engineers are thus turning to new alternatives involving technology bundles using direct air capture of C0 2 and storage. However, the social acceptability of these is presumed unlikely given the sheer complexity of their components, governance arrangements, perceived advantages and disadvantages, and the different moral and value positions at play. This paper explores public perceptions of a proposed system including above sea and potentially more positively viewed components (wind energy to power direct air capture of carbon) alongside deepocean and potentially more negatively perceived components (injection and storage as carbonate rock).Using a representative survey of n = 2120 US and Canadian residents nearest a proposed system pilot, analysis reveals two very different pro les of perceivers, pro and con. Rejection of the system as a whole is driven by concern for storage or below sea components, physical risks (e.g., leakage), and belief that such a system constitutes a moral hazard, enabling continued fossil fuel dependence. Conversely, those who support such a system perceive it as economically, climatically, and ethically bene cial now and for future generations, express a strong sense of climate severity and urgency, and see themselves as responsible for natural systems. We close with cautions as to the social licence for negative emission technologies, and the fragility of hope as these possibilities unfold.

Shifts in species ranges and viability introduced by climate change are creating difficult challenges for scientists and citizens. In many cases, the seriousness of threats to endangered species is forcing policy makers and resource managers to consider novel species protection strategies, either to complement or replace existing conservation approaches. This paper seeks to deepen understanding of public views on a range of conventional and novel management initiatives designed to protect species under the threat of extinction, based on results from an online survey conducted in the USA and Canada. Participants first selected a preferred intervention strategy and were then presented with a series of scenarios, focused on protection of the endangered bristlecone pine, which allowed them to explore their willingness to shift to a new policy regime with a better chance of protecting the species. The use of a decision-pathways survey design allowed us to examine the strength of the nudge required to elicit a shift in their position and the reasoning underlying selection of a preferred management alternative. Results generally support the conclusion that, so long as a clear rationale is provided, there exists surprisingly widespread support for the adoption of novel management approaches to save threatened or endangered species even if this requires more intensive genetic and transformational interventions that are costly or ethically challenging.

A host of technologies is rapidly entering agriculture. These new technologies-particularly gene editingrepresent multifaceted shifts beyond "genetic modification" (GM), and are outpacing both public understanding and the capacity of regulatory regimes. This paper employs the case of the organic sectors in Canada and the United States, strongholds of GM resistance, to examine conversations about gene-editing technologies unfolding within the organic community, and elucidate their implications for the sector. We employ the concept of "boundary work" to illuminate how key actors and institutions delineate the concept of organic breeding in the face of emerging technologies. We draw upon semi-structured interviews with organic sector representatives, a review of documents published by organic organizations, and data from participant observation. We find that the organic community is reaffirming and deepening boundaries in response to arguments made by proponents of gene editing. Both internal and external pressures on the sector are facilitating a dampening effect on conversations about the boundaries between gene editing and organic agriculture, as the sector is compelled to present a united voice against the affront of new genetic technologies. The sector is also redrawing existing boundaries, as the advent of gene editing has forced conversations about the compatibility of both new and established breeding methods with organic. The resulting questions about what distinguishes acceptable levels of human intervention in plant genomes are highlighting some differences within the diverse organic community. We also argue that debates about gene editing and organic breeding may be "bounding out" important actors from deliberation processes, and note initial attempts to reckon with this exclusion.

Ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) is being considered as a way of achieving large-scale removals of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Research on the risks and benefits of different OAE approaches is expanding apace, but it remains difficult to anticipate and appraise the potential impacts to human communities that OAE might generate. These impacts, however, will be critical to evaluating the viability of specific OAE projects. This paper draws on the authors’ involvement in interdisciplinary assessment of OAE (1) to identify the factors that currently limit characterization of potential social impacts and (2) to propose ways of reconfiguring OAE research to better consider these.