Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering

Nature Climate Change volume 4, pages 106–110 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, with CO2 passing 400 parts per million in May 2013. To avoid severe climate change and the attendant economic and social dislocation, existing energy efficiency and emissions control initiatives may need support from some form of climate engineering. As climate engineering will be controversial, there is a pressing need to inform the public and understand their concerns before policy decisions are taken. So far, engagement has been exploratory, small-scale or technique-specific. We depart from past research to draw on the associative methods used by corporations to evaluate brands. A systematic, quantitative and comparative approach for evaluating public reaction to climate engineering is developed. Its application reveals that the overall public evaluation of climate engineering is negative. Where there are positive associations they favour carbon dioxide removal (CDR) over solar radiation management (SRM) techniques. Therefore, as SRM techniques become more widely known they are more likely to elicit negative reactions. Two climate engineering techniques, enhanced weathering and cloud brightening, have indistinct concept images and so are less likely to draw public attention than other CDR or SRM techniques.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Sample concept maps for New Zealand.
Figure 2: Summary of all concept maps.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Meeting Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Expert Meeting on Geoengineering (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, 2012); http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/EM_GeoE_Meeting_Report_final.pdf.

  2. Corner, A. & Pidgeon, N. F. Geoengineering the climate: The social and ethical implications. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 52, 24–37 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Shepherd, J. Geoengineering the climate: An overview and update. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 370, 4166–4175 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. The Royal Society. Geoengineering the Climate Science, Goverance and Uncertainty Science Policy Centre Report 10/09 (The Royal Society, 2009).

  5. Pidgeon, N. Climate change risk perception and communication: Addressing a critical moment? Risk Anal. 32, 951–956 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Large-Scale Intentional Interventions into The Climate System? Assessing the Climate Engineering Debate (Kiel Earth Institute, 2011); http://www.fona.de/mediathek/pdf/Climate_Engineering_engl.pdf.

  7. Peters, G. P. et al. Rapid growth in CO2 emissions after the 2008–2009 global financial crisis. Nature Clim. Change 2, 2–4 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Vaughan, N. & Lenton, T. A review of climate engineering proposals. Climatic Change 109, 745–790 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pidgeon, N. & Fischhoff, B. The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nature Clim. Change 1, 35–41 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Experiment Earth: Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering (Ipsos Mori, 2010); http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/geoengineering-dialogue-final-report.pdf.

  11. Orr, P., Twigger-Ross, C., Kashefi, E., Rathouse, K. & Haigh, J. Evaluation of Experiment Earth? Public Dialogue on Geoengineering (Collingwood Environmental Planning, 2011). http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/geoengineering-evaluation-report.pdf.

  12. Pidgeon, N., Parkhill, K., Corner, A. & Vaughan, N. Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nature Clim. Change 3, 451–457 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mercer, A., Keith, D. & Sharp, J. Public understanding of solar radiation management. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 044006 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Climate Engineering Technical Status, Future Directions, and Potential Responses GAO-11-71 (US Government Accountability Office, 2011); http://www.gao.gov/search?q=_GAO-11-71.

  16. Pidgeon, N., Corner, A., Parkhill, K., Spence, A., Butler, C. & Poortinga, W. Exploring early public responses to geoengineering. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 370, 4176–4196 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Keller, K. L. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. J. Market. 57, 1–22 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Henderson, G. R., Iacobucci, D. & Calder, B. J. Brand diagnostics: Mapping branding effects using consumer associative networks. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 111, 306–327 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Romaniuk, J. Modeling mental market share. J. Business Res. 66, 188–195 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Anderson, J. R. & Bower, G. H. Human Associative Memory (Hemisphere, 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Anderson, J. R. A spreading activation theory of memory. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 22, 261–295 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lees, G. & Wright, M. The effect of concept formulation on concept scores. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 21, 389–400 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B. H., Byrant, K. & Rogers-Hayden, T. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotech. 4, 95–98 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Corner, A. & Randall, A. Selling climate change? The limitations of social marketing as a strategy for climate change public engagement. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 1005–1014 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow (Penguin, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Driesener, C.B. & Romaniuk, J. Comparing methods of brand image measurement. Int. J. Market Res. 48, 681–698 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Winchester, M. & Romaniuk, J. Evaluative and descriptive patterns to negative image attributes. Int. J. Market Res. 45, 21–34 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sharp, B. How Brands Grow: What Marketers Don’t Know (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hwang, Y. & Southwell, B. G. Science TV news exposure predicts science beliefs. Commun. Res. 36, 724–742 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Parkhill, K. & Pidgeon, N. Public Engagement on Geoengineering Research: Preliminary Report on the SPICE Deliberative Workshops Understanding Risk Group Working Paper 11-01 (School of Psychology, Cardiff University, 2011).

  31. Wright, M., Gendall, P. & Lewis, A. Making survey based price experiments more accurate. J. Market Res. Soc. 41, 245–249 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Massey University Research Fund (M.J.W.) and NERC grant NE/I006311/1 (D.A.H.T.). Thanks to M. Comrie, P. Gendall and L. Stocchi for helpful and thought-provoking suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Massey University, Tennent Drive, Palmerston North 4410, New Zealand

    Malcolm J. Wright

  2. Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science, University of South Australia, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia

    Malcolm J. Wright

  3. Ocean & Earth Science, National Oceanography Centre Southampton, University of Southampton, European Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK

    Damon A. H. Teagle

  4. School of Communication, Journalism and Marketing, Massey University, Tennent Drive, Palmerston North 4410, New Zealand

    Pamela M. Feetham

Authors
  1. Malcolm J. Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Damon A. H. Teagle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pamela M. Feetham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

D.A.H.T. conceived of the project, advised on the climate engineering concepts and contributed to writing. M.J.W. developed the research design, raised funds and undertook analysis and writing. P.M.F. managed the fieldwork and contributed to analysis and writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malcolm J. Wright.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wright, M., Teagle, D. & Feetham, P. A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering. Nature Clim Change 4, 106–110 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2087

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2087

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing