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
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
Corner, A. & Pidgeon, N. F. Geoengineering the climate: The social and ethical implications. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 52, 24–37 (2010).
Shepherd, J. Geoengineering the climate: An overview and update. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 370, 4166–4175 (2012).
The Royal Society. Geoengineering the Climate Science, Goverance and Uncertainty Science Policy Centre Report 10/09 (The Royal Society, 2009).
Pidgeon, N. Climate change risk perception and communication: Addressing a critical moment? Risk Anal. 32, 951–956 (2012).
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.
Peters, G. P. et al. Rapid growth in CO2 emissions after the 2008–2009 global financial crisis. Nature Clim. Change 2, 2–4 (2011).
Vaughan, N. & Lenton, T. A review of climate engineering proposals. Climatic Change 109, 745–790 (2011).
Pidgeon, N. & Fischhoff, B. The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nature Clim. Change 1, 35–41 (2011).
Experiment Earth: Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering (Ipsos Mori, 2010); http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/geoengineering-dialogue-final-report.pdf.
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.
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).
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).
Mercer, A., Keith, D. & Sharp, J. Public understanding of solar radiation management. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 044006 (2011).
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.
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).
Keller, K. L. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. J. Market. 57, 1–22 (1993).
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).
Romaniuk, J. Modeling mental market share. J. Business Res. 66, 188–195 (2013).
Anderson, J. R. & Bower, G. H. Human Associative Memory (Hemisphere, 1973).
Anderson, J. R. A spreading activation theory of memory. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 22, 261–295 (1983).
Lees, G. & Wright, M. The effect of concept formulation on concept scores. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 21, 389–400 (2004).
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).
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).
Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow (Penguin, 2011).
Driesener, C.B. & Romaniuk, J. Comparing methods of brand image measurement. Int. J. Market Res. 48, 681–698 (2006).
Winchester, M. & Romaniuk, J. Evaluative and descriptive patterns to negative image attributes. Int. J. Market Res. 45, 21–34 (2003).
Sharp, B. How Brands Grow: What Marketers Don’t Know (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010).
Hwang, Y. & Southwell, B. G. Science TV news exposure predicts science beliefs. Commun. Res. 36, 724–742 (2009).
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).
Wright, M., Gendall, P. & Lewis, A. Making survey based price experiments more accurate. J. Market Res. Soc. 41, 245–249 (1999).
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
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
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Supplementary information
Rights 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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2087
This article is cited by
-
Public opinion about solar radiation management: A cross-cultural study in 20 countries around the world
Climatic Change (2024)
-
Public response to decarbonisation through alternative shipping fuels
Environment, Development and Sustainability (2023)
-
Public response to solar geoengineering: how media frames about stratospheric aerosol injection affect opinions
Climatic Change (2023)
-
Determining our climate policy future: expert opinions about negative emissions and solar radiation management pathways
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change (2022)
-
Public perception and acceptance of negative emission technologies – framing effects in Switzerland
Climatic Change (2021)