RTCC logo

Geoengineering lacks popular support say researchers

Injecting aerosols into atmosphere or stimulating plankton growth in oceans unpopular with public

(Pic: Karindalziel/flickr)

(Pic: Karindalziel/flickr)

By Tim Radford

Geoengineering – the frustrated climate scientist’s last-ditch solution to global warming – is not likely to be a very popular choice.

Members of the public have “a negative view” of deliberate large-scale manipulation of the environment to counteract climate change, according to new research in Nature Climate Change.

Geoengineering has been repeatedly proposed as a response to the steady build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and increasingly cited as a potential necessity as global emissions from fossil fuels have continued to increase.

If political action fails, some scientists reason, then perhaps technology could stop global average temperatures from getting too high.

Among these options is the injection of aerosols into the stratosphere to block or dim the sunlight, or the release of reflecting devices in Earth orbit to actually reflect sunlight away from the planet, on the principle that if you can’t turn down the atmospheric temperature, you could at least put up a sunscreen to cool the planet a little.

Such ideas have failed to find universal favour in the scientific community, if only because such action could seriously upset rainfall patterns and trigger disaster in the arid parts of Africa.

Consistent reluctance

But until now, nobody has seriously put the question to the public. Ordinary people don’t like the idea, say Malcolm Wright and Pamela Feetham of Massey University in New Zealand, and Damon Teagle of the University of Southampton, UK.

They consulted large samples of opinion in both Australia and New Zealand, and found “remarkably consistent” responses from both countries, “with surprisingly few variations except for a slight tendency for older respondents to view climate engineering more favourably,” says Pamela Feetham.

The trio report in Nature Climate Change that where there had been engagement with the public, this had been “exploratory, small-scale, or technique-specific.”

So the researchers tried another approach, one used by big corporations to evaluate marketing brands. Such approaches use psychological techniques to find out what people associate with different ideas, and have done so successfully for two decades.

The researchers systematically examined and compared in a controlled fashion the public reaction to six potential climate engineering techniques, among them, for instance, robot ships that would spray seawater droplets over the ocean to reflect sunlight – it’s called cloud brightening – and air capture, the design of structures to filter CO2 from the air.

Charcoal is popular

They found that people were not in favour of deflecting or blocking sunlight, but were more likely to have positive reactions to techniques that might reduce carbon dioxide levels.

“It was a striking result and a very clear pattern”, said Professor Wright. “Interventions such as putting mirrors in space or fine particles in the stratosphere are not well received.

More natural processes of cloud brightening or enhanced weathering are less likely to raise objections, but the public react best to creating biochar (making charcoal from vegetation to lock in CO2) or capturing carbon directly from the air.”

The message is that if scientists want to save the planet by climate engineering, they had better ask around first. “If these techniques are developed the public must be consulted”, said Professor Wright.

“Our methods can be employed to evaluate the responses in other countries and reapplied in the future to measure how public opinion changes as these potential new techniques are discussed and developed.”

This article was produced by the Climate News Network

Read more on:

Related News

Geoengineering could disrupt monsoons say scientists

Russia urges UN’s IPCC climate report to include geoengineering

Geoengineering could create more questions than answers

Climate geoengineering: Is crushed rock the answer?

  • Neil Farbstein

    I have devised some geoengineering “solutions” to runaway greenhouse warming. I am not enthusiastic myself about using them unless sea levels rise uncontrollably.

    Fertilizing the oceans is a viable option since the effects of adding iron and other nutrients will stop as soon as we stop adding to the oceans- the effects are reversible.

  • cbrtxus

    I don’t recall that any of the scientists/social activists anticipated that the surface-based global temperature records would show no significant warming since around 2001. None of the climate models anticipated the lack of warming. I suspect that some have now been “tuned” to “predict” the lack of warming retrospectively. “Predicting” what has already happened is a lot easier than predicting what will happen in the future.

    Now we are supposed to assume that scientist/social activists who are still scrambling to try to explain the lack of warming are correct in telling us that geoengineering may be essential.

    There needs to be a new study to determine just how stupid they really think we are.

    We should be far more worried about the unintended consequences of what those guys are proposing than the consequences of additional warming that may or may not occur.

    Solar activity is the lowest if has been in over 100 years.

    The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is already well into its next cool phase.

    The North Atlantic sea surface temperature is still in a warm phase. But it leveled off around 2001. It stopped getting warmer. It will, at some point, start moving into the next cool phase. When that happens, the geoengineering being proposed could be exactly the wrong thing to do. We may need to be concerned about the possibility of cooling as well as the possibility of warming.

  • Max Mogren

    Geoengineering is weather warfare and genocide. Geoengineering was developed decades ago and has been implemented globally for over a decade. Anyone who can’t see the evidence of this visible in the sky should apply for government disability because they’re either legally blind, braindead, of so deep in denial that they should get their government kool-aid for free. Wake up. Watch this: Mainstream Flounders to Spin the Geoengineered Drought in California http://www.youtube.com/watch?v