Public opinion about solar radiation management: A cross-cultural study in 20 countries around the world
-
Published:2024-03-29
Issue:4
Volume:177
Page:
-
ISSN:0165-0009
-
Container-title:Climatic Change
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Climatic Change
Author:
Contzen NadjaORCID, Perlaviciute GodaORCID, Steg LindaORCID, Reckels Sophie Charlotte, Alves SusanaORCID, Bidwell DavidORCID, Böhm GiselaORCID, Bonaiuto Marino, Chou Li-Fang, Corral-Verdugo Victor, Dessi Federica, Dietz ThomasORCID, Doran Rouven, Eulálio Maria do Carmo, Fielding Kelly, Gómez-Román CristinaORCID, Granskaya Juliana V.ORCID, Gurikova Tatyana, Hernández BernardoORCID, Kabakova Maira P.ORCID, Lee Chieh-YuORCID, Li Fan, Lima Maria Luísa, Liu Lu, Luís Sílvia, Muinos GabrielORCID, Ogunbode Charles A.ORCID, Ortiz María Victoria, Pidgeon NickORCID, Pitt Maria Argüello, Rahimi Leila, Revokatova Anastasia, Reyna Cecilia, Schuitema GeertjeORCID, Shwom RachaelORCID, Yalcinkaya Nur Soylu, Spence Elspeth, Sütterlin Bernadette
Abstract
AbstractSome argue that complementing climate change mitigation measures with solar radiation management (SRM) might prove a last resort to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. To make a socially responsible decision on whether to use SRM, it is important to consider also public opinion, across the globe and particularly in the Global South, which would face the greatest risks from both global warming and SRM. However, most research on public opinion about SRM stems from the Global North. We report findings from the first large-scale, cross-cultural study on the public opinion about SRM among the general public (N = 2,248) and students (N = 4,583) in 20 countries covering all inhabited continents, including five countries from the Global South and five ‘non-WEIRD’ (i.e. not Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic) countries from the Global North. As public awareness of SRM is usually low, we provided participants with information on SRM, including key arguments in favour of and against SRM that appear in the scientific debate. On average, acceptability of SRM was significantly higher in the Global South than in the ‘non-WEIRD’ Global North, while acceptability in the ‘WEIRD’ Global North was in between. However, we found substantial variation within these clusters, especially in the ‘non-WEIRD’ Global North, suggesting that countries do not form homogenous clusters and should thus be considered individually. Moreover, the average participants’ views, while generally neither strong nor polarised, differed from some expert views in important ways, including that participants perceived SRM as only slightly effective in limiting global warming. Still, our data suggests overall a conditional, reluctant acceptance. That is, while on average, people think SRM would have mostly negative consequences, they may still be willing to tolerate it as a potential last resort to fight global warming, particularly if they think SRM has only minor negative (or even positive) impacts on humans and nature.
Funder
Eawag - Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference60 articles.
1. Al Jazeera (2022) UN: 13 million face hunger in Horn of Africa as droughtworsens. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/8/13-million-face-hunger-in-horn-of-africa-as-drought-worsens-un 2. Barrett S (2014) Solar geoengineering’s brave new world: thoughts on the governance of an unprecedented technology. Rev Environ Econ Policy 8(2):249–269. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/reu011 3. Biermann F, Oomen J, Gupta A, Ali SH, Conca K et al (2023) Open letter: We call for an international non-use agreement on solar geoengineering. https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/open-letter/ 4. Brent K, McGee J, Maguire A (2015) Does the ‘no-harm’ rule have a role in preventing transboundary harm and harm to the global atmospheric commons from geoengineering? Clim Law 5(1):35–63. https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-00501007 5. Burns ET, Flegal JA, Keith DW, Mahajan A, Tingley D et al (2016) What do people think when they think about solar geoengineering? A review of empirical social science literature, and prospects for future research. Earths Future 4(11):536–542. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000461
|
|