Search

Novel, potentially radical climate intervention technologies like carbon dioxide removal and solar geoengineering are attracting attention as the adverse impacts of climate change are increasingly felt. The ability of publics, particularly in the Global South, to participate in discussions about research, policy, and deployment is restricted amidst a lack of familiarity and engagement. Drawing on a large-scale, cross-country exercise of nationally representative surveys (N = 30,284) in 30 countries and 19 languages, this article establishes the first global baseline of public perceptions of climate-intervention technologies. Here, we show that Global South publics are significantly more favorable about potential benefits and express greater support for climate-intervention technologies. The younger age and level of climate urgency and vulnerability of these publics emerge as key explanatory variables, particularly for solar geoengineering. Conversely, Global South publics express greater concern that climate-intervention technologies could undermine climate-mitigation efforts, and that solar geoengineering could promote an unequal distribution of risks between poor and rich countries.

Knowledge production and learning related to ESTPs face significant challenges, with implications for effective science-policy interactions. Scientific knowledge about ESTPs is increasingly reflected in IPCC assessment reports, but governance actors are not yet using this growing knowledge base sufficiently. Lack of awareness, misconceptions and learning challenges limit the demand for, and use of, existing scientific insights. At the same time, engagement with tipping points in the social sciences and humanities is lagging. The knowledge needed to understand, assess and support governance efforts related to ESTPs in a polycentric setting must be solutions-oriented, context-specific and actor-relevant. Anticipatory knowledge and related capacities for making sense of and acting with regard to uncertain futures (e.g. complex systems thinking) are essential tools for decision makers. Currently dominant patterns of knowledge co-production and science-policy engagement do not foster learning and anticipatory capacity-building sufficiently to generate robust and actionable knowledge for policy. To effectively support governance efforts related to ESTPs across multiple scales, knowledge production should be inter and transdisciplinary, and increasingly participatory. Developing capacities for anticipation requires expanded use of methods like participatory scenario development, roleplay simulations and storytelling, which combine quantitative and qualitative data, foster participants’ ability to deal with uncertainty, and strengthen long-term agency. Experiments with some of these approaches are currently taking place in global knowledge-generating institutions like the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). However, more profound changes to current science-policy interface institutions

Deliberations are underway to utilize increasingly radical technological options to help address climate change and stabilize the climatic system. Collectively, these options are often referred to as “climate geoengineering.” Deployment of such options, however, can create wicked tradeoffs in governance and require adaptive forms of risk management. In this study, we utilize a large and novel set of qualitative expert interview data to more deeply and systematically explore the types of risk–risk tradeoffs that may emerge from the use of 20 different climate geoengineering options, 10 that focus on carbon dioxide or greenhouse gas removal, and 10 that focus on solar radiation management and reflecting sunlight. We specifically consider: What risks does the deployment of these options entail? What types of tradeoffs may emerge through their deployment? We apply a framework that clusters risk–risk tradeoffs into institutional and governance, technological and environmental, and behavioral and temporal dimensions. In doing so, we offer a more complete inventory of risk–risk tradeoffs than those currently available within the respective risk-assessment, energy-systems, and climate-change literatures, and we also point the way toward future research gaps concerning policy, deployment, and risk management.

The scientific literature on the co-impacts of low-carbon energy systems—positive and negative side effects—has focused intently on climate mitigation, or climate adaptation. It has not systematically examined the prospective co-impacts of carbon removal (or negative emissions) and solar geoengineering. Based on a large sample of diverse expert interviews (N = 125), and using a sociotechnical approach, in this study we identify 107 perceived co-impacts related to the deployment of carbon removal and solar geoengineering technologies. Slightly less than half (52) were identified as positive co-impacts (38 for carbon removal, 14 for solar geoengineering), whereas slightly more than half (55) were identified as negative co-impacts (31 for carbon removal, 24 for solar geoengineering). We then discuss 20 of these co-impacts in more depth, including positive co-impacts for nature-based protection, the expansion of industry, and reduction of poverty or heat stress as well as negative co-impacts for water insecurity, moral hazard, limited social acceptance and path dependence. After presenting this body of evidence, the paper then discusses and theorizes these co-impacts more deeply in terms of four areas: relationality and risk-risk trade-offs, co-deployment and coupling, intentional or unintentional implications, and expert consensus and dissensus. It concludes with more general insights for energy and climate research, and policy.

The impacts of global climate change on international security and geopolitics could be of historic proportion, challenging those of previous global threats such as nuclear weapons proliferation, the Great Depression, and terrorism. But while the evidence surrounding the security impacts of climate change is fairly well-understood and improving, less is known about the security risks to climate-technology deployment. In this study, we focus on the geopolitical, security, and military risks facing negative emissions and solar geoengineering options. Although controversial, these options could become the future backbone of a low-carbon or net-zero society, given that they avoid the need for coordinated or global action (and can be deployed by a smaller group of actors, even non-state actors), and that they can “buy time” for mitigation and other options to be scaled up. We utilize a large and diverse expert-interview exercise (N = 125) to critically examine the security risks associated with ten negative emission options (or greenhouse gas removal technologies) and ten solar geoengineering options (or solar radiation management technologies). We ask: What geopolitical considerations does deployment give rise to? What particular military applications exist? What risks do these options entail in terms of weaponization, misuse, and miscalculation? We examine such existing and prospective security risks across a novel conceptual framework envisioning their use as (i) diplomatic or military negotiating tools, (ii) objectives for building capacity, control, or deterrence, (iii) targets in ongoing conflicts, and (iv) causes of new conflicts. This enables us to capture a far broader spectrum of security concerns than those which exist in the extant literature and to go well beyond insights derived from climate modelling or game theory by drawing on a novel, rich, and original dataset of expert perceptions.

This article discusses and illuminates the synergies and jeopardies or tradeoffs that exist between the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and net-zero or future climate protection options such as greenhouse gas removal (GGR) technologies and solar radiation management (SRM) deployment approaches, respectively. Through a large-scale expert-interview exercise (N = 125), the study finds firstly that numerous synergies and tradeoffs exist between GGR, SRM, and the SDGs. More specifically, we reveal that GGR deployment could enhance the attainment of 16 of the 17 SDGs, but this comes with possible tradeoffs with 12 of the SDGs. SRM deployment could not only enhance the attainment of 16 of the 17 SDGs, but also create possible tradeoffs with (a different) 12 SDGs. The findings further support the understanding of the complexity of SRM and GGR proposals and help policymakers and industrial pioneers understand, navigate, and benchmark between geoengineering approaches using sustainable development goals.

Negative emissions technologies and solar radiation management techniques could contribute towards climate stability, either by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it permanently or reflecting sunlight away from the atmosphere. Despite concerns about them, such options are increasingly being discussed as crucial complements to traditional climate change mitigation and adaptation. Expectations around negative emissions and solar radiation management and their associated risks and costs shape public and private discussions of how society deals with the climate crisis. In this study, we rely on a large expert survey (N = 74) to critically examine the future potential of both negative emission options (e.g., carbon dioxide removal) and solar radiation management techniques. We designed a survey process that asked a pool of prominent experts questions about (i) the necessity of adopting negative emissions or solar radiation management options, (ii) the desirability of such options when ranked against each other, (iii) estimations of future efficacy in terms of temperature reductions achieved or gigatons of carbon removed, (iv) expectations about future scaling, commercialization, and deployment targets, and (v) potential risks and barriers. Unlike other elicitation processes where experts are more positive or have high expectations about novel options, our results are more critical and cautionary. We find that some options (notably afforestation and reforestation, ecosystem restoration, and soil carbon sequestration) are envisioned frequently as necessary, desirable, feasible, and affordable, with minimal risks and barriers (compared to other options). This contrasts with other options envisaged as unnecessary risky or costly, notably ocean alkalization or fertilization, space-based reflectors, high-altitude sunshades, and albedo management via clouds. Moreover, only the options of afforestation and reforestation and soil carbon sequestration are e

In this study, we utilize a large and diverse expert interview exercise (N = 125) to critically examine the whole systems justice issues associated with ten negative emissions and ten solar geoengineering technologies. We ask: What equity and justice concerns arise with these 20 options? What particular vulnerable groups could be affected? What risks do these options entail for communities or the climate? Utilizing a “claims making” approach, we examine existing and prospective injustices across a pluralistic whole systems framework analyzing (i) resource extraction issues including minerals, chemicals, and fertilizers (ii) manufacturing, labor and ownership concerns, (iii) transportation-network and land-grabbing dynamics, (iv) unfair and exclusionary policymaking and planning, (v) operational injustices resulting from deployment and use, and (vi) waste flows, liabilities and disposal requirements. We then explore how these potential concerns culminate in a milieu of injustice cutting across the dimensions of distribution (who gets what), recognition (who counts), participation (who gets heard), capabilities (what matters), and responsibility (who does what). We conclude with insights for both policy and future research.