Trade-offs between mitigation and climate engineering: an interdisciplinary approach (TOMACE)
Practical Philosophy
Social Psychology, Industrial and Organisational Psychology
Final Report Abstract
Even if societies decarbonized rapidly, it is unlikely that they will achieve the 1.5°C target without deploying carbon dioxide removal methods like bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) or afforestation. Such methods were included in the special report Global Warming of 1.5°C published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2018. This report also discusses solar radiation management, such as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) which might be used to change global temperatures. However, public debate about the acceptability of these methods remains absent. The project TOMACE, trade-offs between mitigation and climate engineering, researched German laypersons’ perceptions of BECCS and SAI from different perspectives. The project brought together researchers from three disciplines to assess public perceptions: (1) psychology using surveys, (2) economics using survey experiments and (3) ethics in a citizens’ jury. We compared the results of the disciplinary studies in a stylized setting that varied participants’ level of knowledge and deliberation – from perceptions that are based on little common knowledge about the methods that is representative of the current public discourse to perceptions that are based on extensive information and deliberation in a citizens’ jury that is representative of participative settings like climate assemblies. We found a high level of uncertainty among survey respondents as whether to accept the use of these methods; the uncertainty decreased when additional information from stakeholders was provided. When comparing survey participants to members of the citizens’ jury, we found lower levels of acceptance for SAI and similar levels for BECCS among jury members who had deliberated the methods intensively over the course of three weekends. Furthermore, participants wanted to be informed about the approaches and in our studies the threat of the deployment of SAI made them focus their attention on mitigation. Furthermore, they preferred options they perceived as more natural like biochar or afforestation over options they perceived as more technical or as a stronger intervention into nature like BECCS or SAI. We conclude that despite fears of distracting from the aim of reducing emissions, decision-makers should publicly discuss these methods to avoid entering climate change mitigation pathways that are based on incorrect assumptions about the political feasibility of CO2 removal.
Publications
- (2017). In defense of emissions egalitarianism?, in: Meyer, L. and Sanklecha, P. (Ed.), Climate justice and Historical Emissions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 165-197
Baatz, C., & Ott, K.
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107706835.009) - (2018). Bürgergutachten zum Bürgerforum „Climate Engineering – eine Möglichkeit gegen den Klimawandel? Schwerin
Ott, K. and Pohlers, J.
- (2018). On the political economy of solar radiation management. Front. Environ. Sci., 6(43)
Ott, K.
(See online at https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00043) - (2019). (Mis)conceptions about modelling of negative emissions technologies. Environmental Research Letters, 14(10), 104004
Rickels, W., Merk, C., Reith, F., Keller, D., & Oschlies, A.
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab3ab4) - (2019). Do climate engineering experts display moral-hazard behaviour? Climate Policy, 19(2) 231-243
Merk, C., Pönitzsch, G. & Rehdanz, K.
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1494534) - (2019). Moral conflicts of several “green” terrestrial negative emission technologies regarding the human right to adequate food – A review. Advances in Geosciences, 49, 37–45
Hohlwegler, P.
(See online at https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-49-37-2019) - (2019). Public perceptions of climate engineering: Laypersons’ acceptance at different levels of knowledge and intensities of deliberation. GAIA- Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 28(4), 348-355
Merk, C., Klaus, G., Pohlers, J., Ernst, A., Ott, K., & Rehdanz, K.
(See online at https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.28.4.6) - (2020). Psychological factors influencing laypersons’ acceptance of climate engineering, climate change mitigation and business as usual scenarios. Technology in Society, 60, 101222
Klaus, G., Ernst, A., & Oswald, L.
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101222) - (2020). The debate on climate engineering in the context of climate change. In Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Geoengineering
Ott K. & Neuber, F.
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.815) - (2021). Effects of opinion statements on laypeople's acceptance of a climate engineering technology. Comparing the source credibility of researchers, politicians and a citizens' jury. Journal of Science Communication, 20(1), A03
Klaus, G., Oswald, L., Ernst, A., & Merk, C.
(See online at https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20010203)
