Abstract
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) describes a suite of controversial approaches to mitigating climate change that involve removing existing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Through an online survey experiment with US adults (N = 980), we examine three factors that may shape public support for different types of CDR strategies: (1) perceptions that CDR tampers with nature, (2) individual-level variation in the degree to which people are uncomfortable with activities that tamper with nature, and (3) information about the risks and benefits associated with each CDR strategy. Using a moderated mediation analysis, we find that support for different CDR strategies is, in part, a function of how much each strategy is perceived to tamper with nature. Support for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and direct air capture (DAC) was lower than support for afforestation and reforestation (AR), as BECCS and DAC were perceived to tamper with nature more. These effects were particularly strong among individuals generally opposed to the idea of humans interfering with natural processes. Moreover, we find evidence that describing the risks and benefits of each CDR strategy dampens support; for AR and BECCS, this effect was again mediated through perceptions of tampering, while for DAC, the effect of describing these tradeoffs appeared to operate independently of perceived tampering. We conclude that policymakers and science communicators need to be mindful of how CDR strategies are described to the public, as perceptions of tampering with nature may be an important driver of their acceptance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The other 661 participants recruited for the survey were assigned to an experimental condition that is irrelevant to the research questions in the present study.
Participants were asked a multiple-choice question, “According to the article you just read, what is the goal of carbon dioxide removal?” Only those who correctly answered “To slow or reverse climate change” were included in the data set.
We did not anticipate an interaction with ATN on the direct link between CDR type and support, as that would suggest that people averse to tampering with nature react differently to CDR even after controlling for the indirect effect through perceived tampering. We controlled for this interaction since it is part of the regression model for the mediator.
Before running Model 63, we ran Model 69 to check for three-way interactions between CDR Type, Tradeoffs condition, and ATN on Perceived tampering and on CDR Support, respectively. None were significant.
References
Ballantyne AG (2016) Climate change communication: what can we learn from communication theory? Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 7:329–344. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.392
Bassarak C, Pfister H-R, Böhm G (2017) Dispute and morality in the perception of societal risks: extending the psychometric model. J Risk Res 20:299–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2015.1043571
Beute F, de Kort YAW (2018) Thinking of nature: associations with natural versus urban environments and their relation to preference. Landsc Res 1–19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2018.1457144
Braun C, Merk C, Pönitzsch G, et al (2017) Public perception of climate engineering and carbon capture and storage in Germany: survey evidence. Clim Pol 1–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1304888
Buck HJ (2016) Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social implications. Clim Chang 139:155–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1770-6
Campbell TH, Kay AC (2014) Solution aversion: on the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. J Pers Soc Psychol 107:809–824. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037963
Campbell-Arvai V, Hart PS, Raimi KT, Wolske KS (2017) The influence of learning about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on support for mitigation policies. Clim Chang 143:321–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2005-1
Clarke L, Jiang K, Akimoto K et al (2014) Assessing transformation pathways. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y et al (eds) Climate change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Corner A, Pidgeon N (2015) Like artificial trees? The effect of framing by natural analogy on public perceptions of geoengineering. Clim Chang 130:425–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1148-6
Corner A, Pidgeon N, Parkhill K (2012) Perceptions of geoengineering: public attitudes, stakeholder perspectives, and the challenge of “upstream” engagement. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 3:451–466. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.176
Corner A, Parkhill K, Pidgeon N, Vaughan NE (2013) Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Glob Environ Chang 23:938–947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.06.002
Cummings CL, Lin SH, Trump BD (2017) Public perceptions of climate geoengineering: a systematic review of the literature. Clim Res 73:247–264. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01475
Dragojlovic N, Einsiedel E (2013a) Framing synthetic biology: evolutionary distance, conceptions of nature, and the unnaturalness objection. Sci Commun 35:547–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012470707
Dragojlovic N, Einsiedel E (2013b) Playing God or just unnatural? Religious beliefs and approval of synthetic biology. Public Underst Sci 22:869–885. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512445011
Dreezens E, Martijn C, Tenbült P et al (2005) Food and values: an examination of values underlying attitudes toward genetically modified- and organically grown food products. Appetite 44:115–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.07.003
Feldpausch-Parker A, Burnham M, Melnik M et al (2015) News media analysis of carbon capture and storage and biomass: perceptions and possibilities. Energies 8:3058–3074. https://doi.org/10.3390/en8043058
Feygina I, Jost JT, Goldsmith RE (2010) System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change”. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 36:326–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209351435
Fridahl M, Lehtveer M (2018) Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): global potential, investment preferences, and deployment barriers. Energy Res Soc Sci 42:155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.03.019
Hansen A (2004) Tinkering with nature: discourses of “nature” in media coverage of genetics and biotechnology. Comunicação e Sociedade 6:51–74
Hansen A (2006) Tampering with nature: “nature” and the “natural” in media coverage of genetics and biotechnology. Media Cult Soc 28:811–834. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443706067026
Hartman LM (2017) Climate engineering and the playing God critique. Ethics Int Aff 31:313–333. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679417000223
Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach, 1st edn. Guilford Press, New York
IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II, and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland
Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Tarantola T et al (2015) Geoengineering and climate change polarization: testing a two-channel model of science communication. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 658:192–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214559002
Lenton TM (2010) The potential for land-based biological CO2 removal to lower future atmospheric CO2 concentration. Carbon Manage 1;1:145–160 https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.10.12
Li M, Chapman GB (2012) Why do people like natural? Instrumental and ideational bases for the naturalness preference. J Appl Soc Psychol 42:2859–2878. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00964.x
McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol Q 52:155–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x
Meadowcroft J (2013) Exploring negative territory carbon dioxide removal and climate policy initiatives. Clim Chang 118:137–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0684-1
Mercer AM, Keith DW, Sharp JD (2011) Public understanding of solar radiation management. Environ Res Lett 6:044006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044006
National Research Council (2015) Climate intervention: carbon dioxide removal and reliable sequestration. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC
Pidgeon NF, Spence E (2017) Perceptions of enhanced weathering as a biological negative emissions option. Biol Lett 13:20170024. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2017.0024
Raimi KT, Wolske KS, Hart PS, Campbell-Arvai V (under review) The aversion to tampering with nature scale (ATN): individual differences in (dis)comfort with altering the natural world
Rozin P, Spranca M, Krieger Z et al (2004) Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite 43:147–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.03.005
Rudski JM, Osei W, Jacobson AR, Lynch CR (2011) Would you rather be injured by lightning or a downed power line? Preference for natural hazards. Judgm. Decis Mak 6:314–322
Sanchez DL, Nelson JH, Johnston J et al (2015) Biomass enables the transition to a carbon-negative power system across western North America. Nat Clim Chang 5:230–234. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2488
Scheer D, Renn O (2014) Public perception of geoengineering and its consequences for public debate. Clim Chang 125:305–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1177-1
Scott SE, Inbar Y, Wirz CD et al (2018) An overview of attitudes toward genetically engineered food. Annu Rev Nutr 38:459–479. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nutr-071715-051223
Siegrist M, Sütterlin B (2014) Human and nature-caused hazards: the affect heuristic causes biased decisions. Risk Anal 34:1482–1494. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12179
Sjöberg L (2000) Perceived risk and tampering with nature. J Risk Res 3:353–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870050132568
Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285
Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan, London
Smith P, Davis SJ, Creutzig F et al (2016) Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat Clim Chang 6:42–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2870
Sütterlin B, Siegrist M (2017) Public perception of solar radiation management: the impact of information and evoked affect. J Risk Res 20:1292–1307. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1153501
Tenbült P, de Vries NK, Dreezens E, Martijn C (2005) Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite 45:47–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2005.03.004
van Vuuren DP, Deetman S, van VJ et al (2013) The role of negative CO2 emissions for reaching 2 °C—insights from integrated assessment modelling. Clim Chang 118:15–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0680-5
Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A et al (2010) The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: about God, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature. J Nanopart Res 12:373–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-009-9809-5
Visschers VHM, Shi J, Siegrist M, Arvai J (2017) Beliefs and values explain international differences in perception of solar radiation management: insights from a cross-country survey. Clim Chang 142:531–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1970-8
Wibeck V, Hansson A, Anshelm J (2015) Questioning the technological fix to climate change – lay sense-making of geoengineering in Sweden. Energy Res Soc Sci 7:23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.03.001
Wright MJ, Teagle DAH, Feetham PM (2014) A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering. Nat Clim Chang 4:106–110. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2087
Funding
This research was funded by the University of Michigan Energy Institute as part of the Beyond Carbon Neutral initiative.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(PDF 4467 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wolske, K.S., Raimi, K.T., Campbell-Arvai, V. et al. Public support for carbon dioxide removal strategies: the role of tampering with nature perceptions. Climatic Change 152, 345–361 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02375-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02375-z