Southeast Asian expert perceptions of solar radiation management techniques and carbon dioxide removal approaches: caution, ambivalence, risk precaution, and research directions

Abstract

As the climate crisis intensifies in its impacts, discussions around the deployment of geoengineering solutions in case other interventions fail or prove insufficient have figured in research and have even been on the agenda of the United Nations. There have been calls for more investigation of geoengineering techniques to address the climate crisis. Yet, this response presents technological unknowns and economic, political, and ethical risks. Producing knowledge on these techniques has been pushed in many research institutes in the global North, especially in the United States, Europe, and Australia. Still, contributions from global South researchers, including those in Southeast Asia, remain scant. This paper describes the responses of seventeen climate and energy experts from southeast Asia on a purposively designed survey that collected expert opinions on two geoengineering techniques: solar radiation modification (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR), their risks, impacts, and governance as they pertain to their countries and region. Respondents showed ambivalence towards these techniques, with many supporting ‘natural’ CDR research and deployment while being cautious about ‘technological’ SRM and CDR research and deployment. Although respondents would welcome research on these technologies, especially their risks and impacts, they also identified critical barriers in research capacity development and funding availability.

Carbon dioxide removal to combat climate change? An expert survey on perception and support

“…The lack of observed significant differences in the overall support of BECCS and DACCS contradicts previous findings (Delina 2021). The current study also did not find significant differences between BECCS and DACCS with regard to the perceived feasibility, perceived necessity, or perceived tampering with nature, indicating that the two technologies are viewed similarly in several regards-an observation that also was made with a sample of lay people (Wright et al 2014).…”

“…While some studies have investigated how the public perceives CDR-CCS (Wright et al 2014, Wolske et al 2019, Cox et al 2020, Jobin and Siegrist 2020, Wenger et al 2021, research on the perceptions of experts is scarce. Existing studies suggest that experts are ambivalent towards NETs (Delina 2021) and that experts have concerns about the technological feasibility of BECCS and the impact of BECCS on biodiversity (Vaughan and Gough 2016). At the same time, it has been shown that the acceptance for BECCS is increasing (Romanak et al 2021) and that climate system modeling experts perceive NETs as necessary (Rickels et al 2019).…”

Deliberating enhanced weathering: Public frames, iconic ecosystems and the governance of carbon removal at scale

“…In addition, there is a clear gap in both understanding and engagement when it comes to the views of non-Western citizens, with little research on this topic, partly stemming from logistical and language barriers and capacity issues (cf. Delina, 2021). In addition to filling this gap by pursuing research overseas, existing public engagement and dialogue processes could consider involving non-Western citizens to give them more of a voice in discussions which assume international-scale deployment.…”

Actors, legitimacy, and governance challenges facing negative emissions and solar geoengineering technologies

“…First, they can work together as part of an effective climate intervention strategy. Delina ( 2021 ) argues that where carbon removal can be used to abate hard-to-mitigate sectors such as aviation or industry, lowering emissions, SRM can help reduce temperatures, enabling the international community to meet a temperature target of 1.5 to 2°C warming. Delina ( 2021 , pp.…”