Public perception of climate engineering and carbon capture and storage in Germany: survey evidence

Abstract

Climate engineering (CE) and carbon capture and storage are controversial options for addressing climate change. This study compares public perception in Germany of three specific measures: Solar radiation management (SRM) via stratospheric sulphate injection, large-scale afforestation, and carbon capture and storage sub-seabed (CCS-S). In a survey experiment we find that afforestation is most readily accepted as a measure for addressing climate change, followed by CCS-S and lastly SRM, which is widely rejected. Providing additional information decreases acceptance for all measures, but their ranking remains unchanged. The acceptance of all three measures is especially influenced by the perceived seriousness of climate change and by trust in institutions. Also, respondents dislike the measures more if they perceive them as a way of shirking responsibility for emissions or as an unconscionable manipulation of nature. Women react more negatively to information than men, while the level of education or the degree of intuitive vs. reflective decision-making does not influence the reaction to information.

Not in My Backyard: CCS Sites and Public Perception of CCS

“…However, the results suggest that residents in affected areas currently perceive the benefits of CCS to be lower than residents elsewhere. Finally, raising awareness does not seem to be a promising strategy to win support of residents, as it has little or even a negative effect on acceptance …”

“…Since the risk of storing CO 2 underground is borne by local residents alone, one would expect opposition to CCS to increase next to CCS sites. In this context, it is important to highlight that local opposition against CCS cannot be readily explained as an “information deficit.” In fact, Braun et al . show that better informed individuals show lower levels of CCS acceptance.…”

“…In this context, it is important to highlight that local opposition against CCS cannot be readily explained as an "information deficit." In fact, Braun et al (31) show that better informed individuals show lower levels of CCS acceptance. The main risk of CCS is a possible leakage of CO 2 from underground deposits caused by increased pressure (e.g., an earthquake) or an incorrect injection of CO 2 .…”

Making sense of climate engineering: a focus group study of lay publics in four countries

“…Previous studies of public understanding of and engagement with climate engineering are mainly from the UK, North America (Bellamy et al 2016;Corner et al 2013;Kahan et al 2015;Macnaghten and Szerszynski 2013;Pidgeon et al 2012Pidgeon et al , 2013 and Germany (Amelung and Funke 2015;Braun et al 2017;Merk et al 2016), with a few exceptions from Sweden , Australia/New Zealand (Wright et al 2014) and Switzerland (Sütterlin and Siegrist 2016). These studies map various and sometimes contradictory findings of public views on climate engineering.…”

A Study on the Evolution of Carbon Capture and Storage Technology Based on Knowledge Mapping

“…(4) Socioeconomic analysis. This research trend is related to cost of carbon capture [70], cost of carbon transportation [74], economic performance of CCS technology [76,101], human health and environment [70,102].…”