Negative emission technologies (NETs) or the drawdown of atmospheric carbon is increasingly essential to meeting climate targets. Many options (e.g., afforestation) may not however meet the scale of removal and permanence of storage needed. Scientists and engineers are thus turning to new alternatives involving technology bundles using direct air capture of C02 and storage. However, the social acceptability of these is presumed unlikely given the sheer complexity of their components, governance arrangements, perceived advantages and disadvantages, and the different moral and value positions at play. This paper explores public perceptions of a proposed system including above sea and potentially more positively viewed components (wind energy to power direct air capture of carbon) alongside deep-ocean and potentially more negatively perceived components (injection and storage as carbonate rock). Using a representative survey of n = 2120 US and Canadian residents nearest a proposed system pilot, analysis reveals two very different profiles of perceivers, pro and con. Rejection of the system as a whole is driven by concern for storage or below sea components, physical risks (e.g., leakage), and belief that such a system constitutes a moral hazard, enabling continued fossil fuel dependence. Conversely, those who support such a system perceive it as economically, climatically, and ethically beneficial now and for future generations, express a strong sense of climate severity and urgency, and see themselves as responsible for natural systems. We close with cautions as to the social licence for negative emission technologies, and the fragility of hope as these possibilities unfold.
Research Article
Exploring public acceptability of direct air capture and storage: Climate urgency, moral hazards and perceptions of the whole versus the parts of a carbon dioxide removal system
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1979479/v1
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License
Journal Publication
published 28 Jan, 2023
You are reading this latest preprint version
Negative Emission Technologies (NETs)
public perceptions
direct air capture and storage
In the wake of the sixth report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2021), carbon removal strategies have come to appear an inevitable feature of meeting climate targets. Pathways toward 1.5 or even 2 degrees C warming above pre-industrial levels, it now seems, will not be not possible without the drawdown of atmospheric or ‘legacy' carbon dioxide (IPCC, 2018). Known as negative emissions technologies or NETs, these remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and store it as durably as possible. The need for NETs is deemed necessary despite potential changes in how people use energy, buildings, and vehicles as well as what people eat and, more broadly, how they live or define a good life (Temple and Crownhart, 2022). However, the potential for such drawdown will depend on, amongst other factors, the social acceptability of its many forms (IPCC, 2022).
While IPCC pathways rely on a limited set of options for drawdown -- afforestation in the low drawdown scenarios, and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in the higher drawdown cases (IPPC 2022) -- scientists, businesses and beyond are developing and examining a growing portfolio of NETs. In parsing this array, decisive categories prove elusive but some scholars have grouped them according to whether a NET is ‘nature-based’ vs. ‘engineered’ (Bertram & Merk, 2020). ‘Nature-based’ NETs, like afforestation and coastal restoration, have numerous environmental and social co-benefits, but may have limited potential for addressing the sheer volume of removals needed (Minx et al., 2018). Many terrestrial options may also introduce justice implications by competing with equally pressing needs for food production (e.g., expanding afforestation into agricultural areas) (Schubel and Helmer 2021). Enhanced rock weathering – the surficial application of minerals in the form of rock silicates to capture atmospheric CO2 -- is promising and readily deployable (Beerling et al., 2020), but its cost, material toxicity and scalability remain a concern (Strefler et al., 2018). While most of these options work to enhance existing carbon sinks, others seek to more directly capture and store carbon (Kelemen et al., 2019). BECCS, which as noted above feature heavily in IPCC models, have raised many concerns about life cycle emissions (e.g., producing more CO2 than is captured) (Fajardy et al., 2019; Hurd et al., 2022; National Academies of Sciences, 2021). And not all BECCS are NETs, in particular those not aimed at targeting legacy emissions per se, but rather at reducing emissions via production of lower-CO2 fuels. Still other approaches that modify ocean biogeochemistry—such as ocean fertilization—may raise concerns about the environmental and social effects of direct intervention in the marine environment (Bertram & Merk, 2020; Cox et al., 2021).
Also controversial are heavily engineered technologies or approaches that are not categorized as NETs but are often discussed in reference to them. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) involves point-source capture of carbon dioxide rather than atmospheric capture of excess CO2, and is often not socially acceptable given its perceived association with fossil energy more broadly (L׳Orange Seigo et al., 2014a; L’Orange Seigo et al., 2014b). Approaches glossed as solar geoengineering raise questions of ‘messing with nature’: for example, the manipulation of the climate system through stratospheric aerosol injection ( Corner et al., 2013; Braun et al., 2018; Corner et al., 2013; Thomas et al., 2018). Ultimately, most scientists, engineers and climate-oriented NGOs agree that no single NET (or related approach) will meet the carbon removal challenge where the challenge remains: (a) the continued need for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and finding options that (b) meet the sheer gigaton per-year scale of removals needed as well as (c) provide durable (long term) storage (Hurd et al., 2022).
1.1 Capturing carbon from the air and storing it deep underground
More recently, a new class of engineered technologies has emerged, which has the potential to address some of the social concerns associated with conventional CCS, solar radiation management, or undesirable changes to ocean biogeochemistry (Gutknecht et al., 2018; Kelemen et al., 2019). These new approaches use direct air carbon capture in combination with durable sequestration within geological reservoirs—and are also known as “DACCS”, or direct air carbon capture with storage (Climeworks, n.d.). Geological storage can be affiliated with hydrocarbons (e.g., by using depleted gas reservoirs) or feature dedicated reservoirs. Mineral reservoirs (e.g., in basalt, much of which is offshore) is an example of the latter, where the promise is for stored CO2 to form carbonates (mineralize) over time, transforming into rock. Ultimately, the expectation is that several technologies and processes will be combined to achieve long-term geological sequestration of CO2 that can be operationalized widely. All such approaches are gaining momentum to the degree that offshore carbon capture and ocean storage is fully evident and financially supported in the U.S. (D'Angelo, 2022). Here we provide a detailed study of public thinking about one such system known as Solid Carbon (Solid Carbon, n.d.). It includes: (1) the use of renewables (e.g., wind at sea) to power the capture of atmospheric CO2; (2) the use of complexes of machines to convert captured CO2 into a fluid or ‘pure’ form (i.e., as compared to CO2 captured from fossil or industrial process emissions), and (3) injection of CO2 into subseafloor porous basalts where it is expected to remain permanently ‘still’ (due to reservoir characteristics and deep ocean pressure) and/or mineralize into solid carbonate rock as noted above (Tutolo et al., 2021).
1.2 Understanding public views on DAC-based capture and mineralization of CO2
The challenge for these emerging systems is their sheer complexity from the point of view of their societal viability as concerns both how they are governed and what they are comprised of, and even whether people are generally optimistic or pessimistic about new technologies. At minimum, any multi-faceted technology of this kind is comprised of attributes likely to invoke both highly negative responses amongst public groups (e.g., due to injection deep underground) and highly positive ones (e.g., due to use of renewables to power direct air capture of CO2) (Pollard & Rose, 2019, Cooley et al, 2023). Support or rejection cannot also be reduced to the attributes of the technology alone, as the values people hold will also likely matter be that about the responsibility people hold for natural systems , about the severity of and urgency assigned to climate problems (Cox et al., 2020), or about the trust assigned to those responsible for risk management and the quality of decision making itself (Buck, 2016).
The purpose of this paper is to investigate emerging public thinking in general and in reference to the many components and linked values, as well as the potential positive and negative outcomes of a carbon dioxide removal system of this kind. Specifically, we seek to understand whether a potential application of a DAC-plus-mineralization system is perceived as overly concerning given its perceived physical, economic or social risks, thus suggesting little ‘social license’ to proceed. Or, might such systems be perceived as a viable CDR solution with economic and social co-benefits? We divide our efforts into consideration of perceived advantages and disadvantages of such an approach based on existing studies and analogous social science literatures from which we draw.
Potential perceived advantages of DACC systems of this kind include: the potential ‘draw down’ of legacy emissions in the form of atmospheric CO2 could be implemented by an entity outside of the oil and gas sector given recent criticisms of that industry (Wallquist et al., 2012). As well, DACC technologies need not rely on proximity to any one point-source industrial facility or a supply of sustainable biomass, as is the case for conventional CCS or BECCS respectively. Projects might also eventually be co-located with renewables, which could avoid energy transportation problems or involve off-grid power generation (e.g., avoiding competition with electrification in other sectors) (Strefler et al., 2018). Their potential capacity to offer CO2 removal at the gigaton scale with a degree of permanence (as mineralized rock) also avoids the landmass needed for options such as afforestation, where stored carbon is susceptible to wildfires (Kelemen et al., 2019), and involves converting large portions of the global food production land base to forest (Qiu et al., 2022). Other forms of mineralization could involve distribution of fine crushed rock across lands, but this again requires a very large terrestrial footprint (Kelemen et al., 2019). When combined with geologic storage, another possibility is that such DACC-plus-mineralization projects might be preferred given their potential for employing skills from those formerly employed by the oil and gas sector—a consideration for scholars of just energy transitions (Swennenhuis et al., 2020). As well, it is possible that people might regardless perceive the storage associated with mineralization to be unique, as it involves storing CO2 as inert rock, as opposed to storage perceived as a more labile or fluid in form.
To possible perceived disadvantages, public groups might associate any injection of CO2 with the purposeful injection of high-pressure liquids to open new fissures in rock, as with hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”). Little is known, as well, about how discrete aspects of capture and storage system are perceived. Tcvetkov et al., (2019) found, for example, that most studies of CCS and CDR are devoted to storage and not its transport and capture, and so we know little about how these components influence acceptability judgments or their opposite. A technology of this kind may also require large investments of time, money and energy to become viable at scale (Fuss et al., 2018; Qiu et al., 2022). This option is also currently one of the most expensive NETs, requiring a level of design, engineering and oversight that surpasses other NETs (Giannousakis et al., 2021; Ishimoto et al., 2017). Concern about impacts on ocean systems might also prevail, as might concerns regarding natural seismicity, leakage, or other impacts associated with subsurface drilling and injection (Erans et al., 2022). Intervening in coastal and ocean space as well as the deep sea may also evoke strong risk perceptions, as commonly found in studies of social response to ocean fertilization among other examples (Cox et al., 2021).
Distrust of those who might monitor or govern such systems might be a barrier for implementation, as it has been in numerous other evaluations of the risks associated with unknown technologies (Siegrist & Cvetkovich, 2002). Knowledge amongst the general public of both DACC and mineralization is also low at best as the language of ‘NETs’ and ‘carbon removal’ is only just entering the public lexicon: roughly, 9.6% awareness in the US and 5.7% in the UK (Cox et al., 2020). DACCS of this kind -- demonstrations aside (e.g., Climeworks, 2021) -- might also be regarded as too slow to a point of operation and so frustrate those who feel a more urgent need to act as soon as possible (Cox et al., 2020). Lastly and importantly, options that involve DACCS might also be seen as too burdened by problems of ‘moral hazard’, or ‘mitigation deterrence’ (Markusson et al., 2018). This is the idea that such technologies will deter development or investments in renewables (Markusson et al., 2022), encourage avoidance of hard energy-transition decisions (Baatz, 2016) or enable continued dependence on fossil fuels (Anderson & Peters, 2016).
To summarize these possibilities, the goal of this paper is to understand how newly emerging systems of this kind are perceived, including:
- Whether support for a DAC and mineralization system is driven by views on its deep-ocean components (injection, drilling and storage) versus its above sea-surface features (offshore platform, wind energy and capture of atmospheric carbon);
- Whether any perceived negative consequences of a DAC and mineralization system (e.g., moral hazards, concerns about leakage, cost, ocean pollution or impacts to ocean ecosystems) outweigh any perceived positive outcomes (e.g., as addressing legacy emissions or climate change more broadly, employing former oil and gas workers, reducing land use competition associated with other NETs);
- Lastly, whether values about nature, perceived urgency of climate change as a problem or (dis)trust of responsible parties, predict support of rejection of such systems?
We investigate these questions using the aforementioned case of Solid Carbon (Solid Carbon, n.d.). It has been proposed for a demonstration project in the EEZ waters of the Pacific Northwest’s Cascadia Basin, and was previously the subject of a pre-feasibility study under the name of CarbonSafe (Goldberg et al., 2018). We describe the case’s site and study design below before discussing the results of a representative survey of public views amongst residents (n=2120) living in Washington state and British Columbia, that is, in the vicinity of the Cascadia Basin.
2.1 Case Context: A direct air carbon capture and mineralization pilot case study
A pilot study of Solid Carbon is anticipated in the coming term, likely sited in the Cascadia basin waters southwest of Vancouver Island and northwest of Washington state’s Olympic peninsula. The site was selected due to its proximity to established deep ocean monitoring facilities and because it encompasses vast areas of basalt needed for mineralization and so durable storage. A new set of studies underway aspires to lay the groundwork for testing and monitoring effectiveness and safety, and to evaluate social concerns and thinking as awareness of the need for NETs grows (the goal of this study).
2.2 Data Collection
All data were collected in the spring of 2021 using a questionnaire to assess levels of support across the general public in British Columbia (BC), Canada and Washington (WA) state. The questionnaire comprised a total of 61 questions including value questions using Likert scales, rating scales and open-ended questions. The complete survey is available as Supplementary Information 1. We circulated the survey online via Qualtrics’ digital data collection agency. To target our sample, we used quotas based on the latest population censuses to ensure stratification by age, gender and representation in coastal areas. After testing the instrument, we collected a total of 2120 surveys (1100 in BC, 1020 in WA). Respondents took on average 25 minutes to complete the survey. We excluded from the dataset surveys completed in under 7 minutes, a threshold that represents the minimum time required to read and answer questions, as identified during pre-testing.
2.3 Dependent and explanatory variables
We explored evaluations of a Solid Carbon system in general and in reference to its component parts via two steps: We first provided a brief tutorial on the need for carbon removal and asked respondents to evaluate a range of NETs (these results are reported elsewhere and are under review). The rest of the survey focused on Solid Carbon including a more detailed description of the system accompanied by a 5-point Likert-style scale evaluating support through rejection. The scale ranged from: strongly oppose, to neither support nor oppose (as midpoint), to strongly support. The same question was asked a second time after a series of questions addressing any concerns about the systems’ component parts and questions about its risks/disadvantages and benefits/advantages. [The full survey details are included as Supplementary Information 1.] We anticipated that baseline levels of opposition/support would change after introducing specific details on system components as well as the social, economic and environmental advantages (benefits) and disadvantages (risks) described above. This change in perception in response to introduced risk and benefit content has been the case in prior studies of new technologies (particularly nanotechnologies, geoengineering and CCS technologies) (Gregory et al., 2016; Satterfield et al., 2013).
Our explanation of why CO2 had to be removed from the atmosphere read as:
In addition to reducing CO2 emissions from human and industrial activities, scientists agree that we also need to remove existing volumes of CO2 from the atmosphere to avoid catastrophic climate change. Different strategies are being proposed to enable that removal. Some involve supporting natural processes, and some include engineered and/or technological solutions.
The case study technology was then explained as:
Solid Carbon is a type of direct air capture and storage technology. Direct air capture and storage technologies capture CO2 from the air, convert it to a liquid form and injects it into porous rock either underground (onshore) or under the seabed (offshore) where it settles and turns into solid rock. It brings together different technologies into a fully integrated system using the following processes:
- The Solid Carbon system is located on an ocean-floating platform approximately 200km from shore.
- Direct air capture pulls CO2 from the atmosphere and converts it to a pure form of liquid CO2.
- The system is powered by wind turbines located on the same floating platform.
- Drilling into the seafloor rock creates sub seafloor sites for storage.
- The compressed liquid CO2 is injected at high pressure into porous rock below the seafloor.
- The liquid CO2 spreads throughout the porous rock and becomes solid rock through a process known as mineralization.
Equivalents were offered to help with comprehension of the scale involved, including:
One Solid Carbon platform is designed to remove 1 million tonnes of CO2 per year from the atmosphere (or 2% of British Columbia’s annual emissions). This would achieve the same CO2 removal as planting trees on 1000 square kilometres of available unforested land (about 1.5 times the area of New York city). You can also think of this as equivalent to converting over 200,000 family cars to zero-emission vehicles.
Table 1 includes a list of all explanatory variables including concern, risk and benefit scales as well as additional Likert-scale questions used to account for other possible predictors of attitudes towards carbon removal technologies. These address both aforementioned findings on social acceptability and facilitate robustness of our predictive models. These included questions on trust in different institutions, values regarding responsibility for nature, measures of climate severity and urgency, views on technology generally and political views using the Communitarian-Individualist and Egalitarian-Hierarchist scales developed by (Kahan, 2012).
We carried out all statistical analysis using the software R version 4.0.3 (R Core Team, 2020). We analyzed dependent and independent variables with descriptive statistics (e.g., means and frequencies) and inferential statistics (e.g., ordinal logistic regression). We carried out factor analyses of responses regarding (1) concern with different components of a Solid Carbon project, and (2) perceived social, environmental and economic risks and benefits and (3) values about: the environment, our responsibilities and relationship to nature, climate urgency, technology, and political views, and views on government and regulation. We grouped data into factors when applicable. We used a minimum loading of 0.40 as the threshold for item inclusion in a factor. We created different scales by averaging the scores of the items that loaded on the factors, and used Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients (a) to assess the internal consistency of the scales. We used K-means clustering to group respondents based on their trust in different actors; we identified the number of clusters using a hierarchical clustering with the Ward method. Finally, we ran ordinal logistic regressions to assess the influence of the explanatory variables on overall opposition to or support for a Solid Carbon pilot project.
3.1 Perceiving the whole versus the parts of a DAC system
Our first question investigated whether a ‘Solid Carbon’-style system would be rejected or supported in general and as a function of its component parts. Figure 1specifies support through rejection of Solid Carbon before and after questions addressing concern about system components as well as potential positive [beneficial] or negative [risky] outcomes. The first elicitation produced combined support at 58%; 25% indicated neutral positions, and 13% opposed and strongly opposed the DACS system. Following concern, risk and benefit questions, these proportions moved, respectively, to 44% combined in support, 34% neutral and 21% opposed.
This variation in support through opposition judgments is investigated further using combined levels of support for above and below sea level components as depicted below in Figure 2. Factor-analyses revealed that respondents had similar levels of concern for above-sea parts 1, 2 and 3, which include the use of renewables: ocean-floating platform, direct air capture, and wind turbines on platform. They also had similar levels of concern for parts 4, 5 and 6, which include technologies loosely similar to those used in oil and gas production: drilling into seafloor, injection of CO2, and mineralization. Overall, concern was lower for the above-sea set of components, and higher for the drilling, injection and mineralization components. The two groupings in Figure 2 include the visual and items provided in the survey itself, and their Cronbach alpha scores (𝛼=.84 and 𝛼=.87, respectively). The full factor analysis results can be found as Supplementary Information 2.
Views of the system’s parts were also mirrored in overall levels of support or opposition to the project. Figure 3 illustrates that concern is highest for injection and drilling activities. Level of concern with all project components were lower following questions about risks and benefits in that the total proportion of those opposing this system rose when asked about it a second time (from 13% to 21% of the overall sample). A second observation (corresponding to the blue lines) is that before and after levels of support for a Solid Carbon pilot project remained virtually constant, but the raw proportion of respondents in the support group decreased from 58% to 44% of the overall sample.
3.2 The relative salience of benefit versus risk questions
Our second research question sought to understand the relative salience and influence of risky or negative outcomes versus beneficial outcomes of a Solid Carbon pilot. Figure 4 outlines degrees of agreement with perceived benefits, with mean scores ranging from 2.76 to 3.35 on a scale where 1= “does not increase my perceived benefit” and 5= “very strongly increases my perceived benefit”. The benefit items produced a single and highly coherent factor across the group, with Cronbach alpha calculated at a=.95. Items included above-referenced carbon mitigating possibilities (reduction of atmospheric CO2) and avoidance of land use conflicts (e.g., reduction of need to convert vast amounts of land to forestland) alongside social and economic benefits (e.g., contributions to a ‘green economy’ or benefits to future generations).
Figure 5 indicates slightly stronger reactions, with mean scores above 3.0 for all but one item on a five-point scale where 1= “does not increase my perceived risk” and 5= “very strongly increases my perceived risk”. The risk items included six biophysical risks (e.g., pollution, health, ocean ecosystem and seismic risks) and four socio-economic/moral risks (e.g., might provide an excuse for slowing the development of renewable energy or might be much more expensive than other climate solutions). Overall, these items revealed two discrete factors—a moral hazard and economic risk group at a=.82, and an environmental and biophysical risk group at a=.90. Mann-Whitney U tests revealed statistically different scores between perceived biophysical risks and perceived benefits, but no significant difference between moral hazard risks and perceived benefits.Risk, Benefit, Climate Urgency, and Value Propositions
Views of the advantages or disadvantages of any new technology are invariably mediated by value positions. Thus, our last research questions investigated support though opposition for Solid Carbon as predicted by new and previously investigated value positions as compared to our above perceptions of multiple risks and benefits and concerns about the above see and below sea components of the technology itself (Table 1 above). By newer value positions, we mean environmental values measured here as views about one’s relationship to and responsibility for natural system, and belief in the urgency and severity of climate problems. Views of climate severity and urgency were adapted from Hagerman et al. (2021) for this purpose. Views of nature were drawn from recent relational value theory, which has argued that people’s sense of relatedness to nature are central to one’s identity, including belief about our responsibility for nature in general and as ‘kin’ (Klain et al., 2017b).
By previously examined value positions, we include well-established variables such as trust in regulating actors (e.g., scientists and regulators) and governing systems, beliefs about nature, and socio-political values, as well as measures of social-economic status (gender, age, income and education). Measures of values reflecting different political cultures were drawn from the work of Kahan and colleagues (2012), and measures of trust followed Earle’s (Earle, 2010) idea of calculative trust, which indexes confidence expressed about the performance of regulators, experts or other responsible governing entities. People’s beliefs about nature’s importance (as a well-established value measure) were captured here using the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) (Dunlap et al., 2000).
3.3 Predicting Support for Solid Carbon
We examined the full suite of questions about concern for system components, and all categories of risks and benefits alongside value and demographic variables as they might predict support for Solid Carbon. We did so using an ordered logistic regression analysis. Table 2 provides these results, which are expressed as odds ratios and significance scores for all key variables. Column 2 references determinants of support or opposition when asked about Solid Carbon the first time, and column 3 references determinants of support or opposition when posed a second time (again, after detailed questions regarding concerns, risks and benefits). Red highlights indicate strong negative determinants and green strong positive findings.
In the first round of judgments about a Solid Carbon pilot study, our benefit items as a group are —above all else—significantly and strongly predictive of initial support for a DACC system/Solid Carbon pilot test, with an odds ratio of 3.01. This likely indicate that a supportive outcome is much more likely to occur when appreciation of the environmental, social, economic and climate mitigating benefits of a system of this kind are recognized. Positive trust, a sense of relatedness and responsibility for nature, and climate urgency are also predictive of support for a Solid Carbon project, and all have odds ratios > 1. On the other hand, distrust was predictive of opposition to a Solid Carbon project, and concern about the sub-sea (drilled and injection) parts of this DAC-based system are also significantly determinative of initial rejection. The odds ratio is smallest for distrust. Higher education and lower age are also predictive of rejection, but political world views were not, nor are perceived physical or moral hazard risks.
Similar determinants prevail in the second elicitation of support versus opposition judgments, with a few added observations. Male gender and trust in government are added determinants of support. The odds ratio or power of benefit appreciation increases by .75. And both higher perceived physical risk and perceived moral hazard risk become highly significant determinants of rejection, though with odds ratios of less than 1.
As the need for scalable carbon dioxide removal technologies grows alongside variation in processes and approaches possible, interest in DACCS solutions have increased. Coverage of mineralization and direct drawdown of atmospheric carbon was recently elaborated in the British press (Ravilious, 2022) and is an option recently backed by the US Congress (Office of Clean Energy, n.d.). However, given the dire implications of many failed social and technological experiments in this domain (Low et al., 2022), and that public knowledge of most CDR options is low, it is likely that the design of options and public thinking about their risks and benefits will be (or need to be) an ongoing conversation. In what follows, we draw on key findings to consider the technological and social concerns expressed by participants, in particular, consideration of system components as they affect support through opposition of the project as a whole; the role of risk versus benefit thinking, particularly key risks such as moral hazard; and discussion of the value positions most indicative of support or opposition toward this system.
4.1 Contingent Support and the Power of Risk versus Benefit Signals
Support for a system of this kind should be considered malleable and contingent as indicated by the proportion of people moving into and out of supportive, neutral and, to a lesser extent, oppositional positions. Anticipating support or rejection of any new technology is difficult at best—in some cases people remain relatively open to learning and rethinking technological options as they emerge (Satterfield et al., 2009). In other cases, opinions solidify early and remain closed despite new or updated information (Song et al., 2022). Additional provision of information on technologies—whether regarding risks or benefits—can also decrease acceptance (Braun et al., 2018). This is sometimes referred to as the ‘hint of risk’ effect (Gregory & Lichtenstein, 1994) where any more detailed discussion (good or bad) invokes a negativity bias across responses (Rozin & Royzman, 2001; Soroka et al., 2019). However, what we found here is that benefit considerations remained the most powerful predictor of support by a considerable margin, with risk thinking comparatively less influential. Put differently, risk was only predictive of support in the second round of judgments that followed questions regarding specific risks, whereas benefit appreciation was consistently predictive of support both in first and second elicitations of judgment.
These results echo a pattern of greater tolerance or acceptance of novel technologies that appear to be increasingly evident in forestry-based forms of NETs and climate adaptation more broadly. For example, controversial climate interventions in forestry are shifting in how they are perceived. These include the use of tree species that have been genetically modified for drought tolerance to aid conservation of key species and support for the assisted migration of species, amongst others (Hagerman et al., 2021). While such interventionist options were untenable in the past, perceptions amongst lay publics appears to be shifting to view these as potentially feasible, under specific conditions, such as rapid climatic affecting important ecosystems (Gregory et al., 2021). A similar pattern could be emerging here—which is perhaps unsurprising given successive extreme heat, flooding and wildfire events, particularly in the regions of British Columbia and Washington studied here.
The salience of benefits found here overall might also suggests an openness to conversations about environmental concerns and benefits of DACCS systems. However, just how specific DACCS projects are developed will be key, with relevant aspects potentially being quality of maintenance of the project and the depth of the ocean where a project is sited (with the deeper ocean potentially a more controversial site, according to Cox and colleagues) (2021). Other emerging evidence or risk events will likely also prove relevant, such as relating to leakage or escapement of any CO2, and detrimental impacts to species or marine ecology. Other factors pertain to the broader context in which such projects emerge, such as the extent of monitoring. Many of these factors may be especially strong for the kind of ocean-based DACS system that we have studied here (Buck, 2018; Cox et al., 2021; Morrow et al., 2020)
4.2 The Parts versus the Whole
We found that not just the system as a whole, but also its component parts, appears to matter for public perceptions of this particular system. Sub-surface project components, particularly piping and injection components, predicted support though rejection of for a Solid Carbon project both before and after we introduced risk and benefit questions. This finding leads us to ask whether the sub-surface components of this DACCS system invoke associations with fossil fuel technologies—despite the technical differences between injection for mineralization and injection for fracking (e.g., differences in injection pressures and goals). Such subtler distinctions may not matter to public perceptions—rather, people may attend to logics that only involve whether injection is used or not.
This finding suggests to us that the study of future DACCS systems, and indeed other CDR systems, may need to investigate the full suite of technologies bundled into single solutions or approach, as suggested by (Tcvetkov et al., 2019). On CCS, Arning et al. (2019) similarly found that judgements of storage, not capture, most influenced acceptance. However, it is also possible that direct air capture of legacy CO2 will be increasingly key if awareness of the need for ‘draw down’ grows. In a study by Cox and colleagues (2020), perceptions of DAC options were not altogether different than those for CCS to the extent that neither option was regarded as addressing the root cause of greenhouse gas emissions in the first place. Thus, eliciting any distinction between technologies that address the causes of climate change (e.g., removal of atmospheric CO2) as opposed to its symptoms (e.g., reducing solar radiation via SRM) may be moot. The same study also found that the biggest problem with DAC was linked storage underground and so it may be that the coupling of DAC with mineralized CO2 is indeed key. In the future, it will be key to find ways to introduce, explain and elicit views on the differentiated parts of these systems, in ways that are structured but not coercive; doing so should also be accompanied by robust citizen deliberation (Hubert, 2017) including participatory designs (Kaplan et al., 2021), and citizen engagement in science and monitoring.
4.3 Value Faultlines: Climate Urgency, Anthropogenic Responsibility and Moral Hazards
Few value positions have been more influential with regard to views about climate change and other controversial topics (e.g., geoengineering, stem cell research and gun control), than have the political cultures distinguished by Kahan and colleagues (Kahan et al., 2015) They found that hierarchical and individualistic values constitute a first order filter that which tends to align with political conservatism, and tends to predict the view of climate-intervening technologies as less risky when compared to the higher risk judgments affiliated with egalitarian worldviews. This is striking in part because climate denial is also associated with political (Kahan et al., 2011) and/or economic conservatism (Carton, 2019). In this study, however, we found that political worldviews were not predictive of views on Solid Carbon. One possibility for this surprising finding is that DACCS and related technologies are not currently well enough known and so may not be closely enough associated with the deep political faultlines that distinguish beliefs about other politicized topics, such as vaccines for example.
Equally surprising was our finding regarding moral hazards, i.e., whether a DACS system like Solid Carbon would be perceived as enabling continued fossil fuel dependency. Previous studies have asserted that the risk of mitigation deterrence is a powerful discourse in deliberative workshops (Campbell-Arvai et al., 2017). We found that beliefs about the moral hazards of such systems were predictive of views only on the second round of elicitation. In other words, concern about moral hazard risks were predictive of views of the system only once they had been suggested to the participant—but not before. Echoing a similar idea, a recent study found that, when using a game to simulate choices about climate mitigation bundles, citizens did not view such stigmatized labels as geoengineering as deterring or ‘crowding out’ other necessary actions (Andrews et al., 2022).
Moral hazard arguments might also be a particularly persuasive among activists and pro-climate policy advocates, but they may also under-estimate the problem of behaviour change, which is notoriously difficult to achieve (Atkins et al., 2017). It is also the case that people tend to estimate a greater capacity than do experts to forestall dangerous climate change, through use of renewables or rapid transition to a low-carbon economy (Wynes et al., 2020). People also often overestimate the power of any one behavioral solution when evaluating the carbon-reducing capacity of pro-environmental behaviours (e.g., conversion to electric vehicles or plant-based diets) (ibid).
Another possibility is that moral hazard concerns are also simply less powerful than is an emphasis placed on climate urgency and climate severity. Climate urgency and a sense of responsibility for nature remained predictive of support across initial and latter judgments of support through opposition of a Solid Carbon system. Indeed, such a reframing of ‘moral hazard’ to ‘moral responsibility’ aligns with recommendations put forward by Global South leaders regarding solar radiation management (Winickoff et al., 2015). Much has also been said about the problem of anthropogenic change, defined by the dystopic facts of a rapidly unfolding potential sixth extinction (Pimm et al., 2014), and so strong anthropogenic responsibility may also be emerging. Strong feelings about nature as kin, about the interconnectedness of all living things, or a belief that one need account for one’s impacts may indicate a growing positive sensibility driving this value measure. While fiscal incentives from carbon taxes to payments for ecosystem services remain popular policy mechanisms, motivation to partake in programs appears instead to have more to do with contributing meaningful action as stewards of natural systems (Chapman et al., 2020)
Regardless, our close examination of one iteration of a DACCS system is instructive only insofar as possible with survey research, and so cannot account for values unknown, the role of social movements or behavioural change introduced by a global pandemic. Fierce arguments exist as to natural versus engineered solutions across expert communities, and communication of these views—wherever they land—may be influential in shaping public views. Also important will be the extent to which DACS projects consider and integrate a wide range of relevant ecological and social criteria (as outlined, for example, in recent work by the Aspen Institute (The Aspen Institute, 2021) and US National Academy of Sciences (2021).
Emerging reviews of negative emission technologies suggest that the vast majority of these are in the early stages of research and development (Nemet et al., 2018). This is all the more so for DACCS systems, though this may change quickly as funding for these options have been endorsed by high-profile entrepreneurs (Temple & Crownhart, 2022 ). With public perceptions of this option nascent at best, stakeholder engagement needs to be fine-grained and sensitive to knowledge regimes (local, Indigenous, and scientific) and much needs to be considered and investigated as public groups come to consider an enormous range of options both near and far term (Low & Buck, 2020). At the very least, we might be wise to avoid expectations that new technologies will be treated as neutral moments of isolated science communication, instead of ignition points for wider mistrust or potentially strong reactions in the face of a single negative event, as has been the case with ocean fertilization in Haida territory in northern coastal British Columbia (Buck, 2018). Counterpoint pressures to act and act quickly are also evident, as indicated by stakeholder statements of deep frustration with temporally distant options and weak policy incentives (Cox et al., 2020; Mitchell et al., 2017). The problems are many and the hope equally fragile, but the conversation is invariably underway.
Ethics Review: University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board ID H20-03077
Funding; We acknowledge support from the Solid Carbon Partnership at the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions.
Competing interests: The authors have no competing interests to declare.
Author contributions: All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Terre Satterfield, Guillaume Peterson St-Laurent and Sara Nawaz. The original draft of the manuscript was written by Terre Satterfield; Sara Nawaz provided comments and edits on all iterations of the manuscript.
Data availability statement: Anonymized data are available at https://github.com/sara-nawaz/Solid-Carbon-public-survey
- Anderson, K., & Peters, G. (2016). The trouble with negative emissions. Science, 354(6309), 182–183. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah4567
- Andrews, T. M., Delton, A. W., & Kline, R. (2022). Anticipating moral hazard undermines climate mitigation in an experimental geoengineering game. Ecological Economics, 196, 107421.
- Arning, K., Offermann-van Heek, J., Linzenich, A., Kaetelhoen, A., Sternberg, A., Bardow, A., & Ziefle, M. (2019). Same or different? Insights on public perception and acceptance of carbon capture and storage or utilization in Germany. Energy Policy, 125, 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.10.039
- Atkins, L., et al. (2017). A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implementation Science, 12(1), 77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0605-9
- Baatz, C. (2016). Can We Have It Both Ways? On Potential Trade-Offs Between Mitigation and Solar Radiation Management. Environmental Values, 25(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327115X14497392134847
- Beerling, D. J., et al. (2020). Potential for large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands. Nature, 583(7815), 242–248. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2448-9
- Bertram, C., & Merk, C. (2020). Public Perceptions of Ocean-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal: The Nature-Engineering Divide? Frontiers in Climate, 2. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fclim.2020.594194
- Braun, C., Merk, C., Pönitzsch, G., Rehdanz, K., & Schmidt, U. (2018). Public perception of climate engineering and carbon capture and storage in Germany: Survey evidence. Climate Policy, 18(4), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1304888
- Buck, H. J. (2016). Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: Social barriers and social implications. Climatic Change, 139(2), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1770-6
- Buck, H. J. (2018). The politics of negative emissions technologies and decarbonization in rural communities. Global Sustainability, 1.
- Campbell-Arvai, V., Hart, P. S., Raimi, K. T., & Wolske, K. S. (2017). The influence of learning about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on support for mitigation policies. Climatic Change, 143(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2005-1
- Carton, W. (2019). “Fixing” Climate Change by Mortgaging the Future: Negative Emissions, Spatiotemporal Fixes, and the Political Economy of Delay. Antipode, 51(3), 750–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12532
- Chapman, M., Satterfield, T., Wittman, H., & Chan, K. M. A. (2020). A payment by any other name: Is Costa Rica’s PES a payment for services or a support for stewards? World Development, 129, 104900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104900
- Climeworks 2022, Climeworks begins operations of Orca, the world’s largest direct air capture and CO₂ storage plant. (n.d.). Retrieved August 2, 2022, from https://climeworks.com/news/climeworks-launches-orca
- Corner, A., Parkhill, K., Pidgeon, N., & Vaughan, N. E. (2013). Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 938–947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.06.002
- Cox, E., Boettcher, M., Spence, E., & Bellamy, R. (2021). Casting a Wider Net on Ocean NETs. Frontiers in Climate, 3. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fclim.2021.576294
- Cox, E., Spence, E., & Pidgeon, N. (2020). Public perceptions of carbon dioxide removal in the United States and the United Kingdom. Nature Climate Change, 10(8), 744–749. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0823-z
- D'Angelo, 2022. Congress Quietly Backed An Ambitious Climate Project: Sending CO2 To The Ocean Floor | HuffPost Impact. (n.d.). Retrieved August 2, 2022, from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/infrastructure-law-carbon-capture-offshore_n_62b4c08ce4b0cdccbe68d51a?utm_medium=email
- Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1984). Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and concern for environmental quality. The Social Science Quarterly, 65(6278), 1013–1028.
- Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442.
- Earle, T. C. (2010). Trust in risk management: A model-based review of empirical research. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 30(4), 541–574.
- Erans, M., S. Sanz-Pérez, E., P. Hanak, D., Clulow, Z., M. Reiner, D., & A. Mutch, G. (2022). Direct air capture: Process technology, techno-economic and socio-political challenges. Energy & Environmental Science, 15(4), 1360–1405. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1EE03523A
- Fajardy, M., Koeberle, A., MacDowell, N., & Fantuzzi, A. (2019). BECCS deployment: A reality check. Grantham Institute Briefing Paper, 28, 2019.
- Fuss, S., et al (2018). Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environmental Research Letters, 13(6), 063002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f
- Giannousakis, A., Hilaire, J., Nemet, G. F., Luderer, G., Pietzcker, R. C., Rodrigues, R., Baumstark, L., & Kriegler, E. (2021). How uncertainty in technology costs and carbon dioxide removal availability affect climate mitigation pathways. Energy, 216, 119253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119253
- Goldberg, D. et al. (2018). Geological Storage of CO2 in Sub-Seafloor Basalt: The CarbonSAFE Pre-Feasibility Study Offshore Washington State and British Columbia. Energy Procedia, 146, 158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.020
- Gregory, R., Kozak, R., Peterson St-Laurent, G., Nawaz, S., Satterfield, T., & Hagerman, S. (2021). Under pressure: Conservation choices and the threat of species extinction. Climatic Change, 166(1–2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03102-3
- Gregory, R., & Lichtenstein, S. (1994). A hint of risk: Tradeoffs between quantitative and qualitative risk factors. Risk Analysis, 14(2), 199–206.
- Gregory, R., Satterfield, T., & Hasell, A. (2016). Using decision pathway surveys to inform climate engineering policy choices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(3), 560–565.
- Gutknecht, V., Snæbjörnsdóttir, S. Ó., Sigfússon, B., Aradóttir, E. S., & Charles, L. (2018). Creating a carbon dioxide removal solution by combining rapid mineralization of CO2 with direct air capture. Energy Procedia, 146, 129–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.017
- Hagerman, S., Satterfield, T., Nawaz, S., St-Laurent, G. P., Kozak, R., & Gregory, R. (2021). Social comfort zones for transformative conservation decisions in a changing climate. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/COBI.13759
- Hubert, A.-M. (2017). A code of conduct for responsible geoengineering research. Global Policy, 12, 82–96.
- Hurd, C. L., Law, C. S., Bach, L. T., Britton, D., Hovenden, M., Paine, E. R., Raven, J. A., Tamsitt, V., & Boyd, P. W. (2022). Forensic carbon accounting: Assessing the role of seaweeds for carbon sequestration. Journal of Phycology, 58(3), 347–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.13249
- IPCC. (2018). Summary for Policymakers. In Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/
- IPCC. (2022). Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-ii/
- Ishimoto, Y., Sugiyama, M., Kato, E., Moriyama, R., Tsuzuki, K., & Kurosawa, A. (2017). Putting Costs of Direct Air Capture in Context (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 2982422). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2982422
- Kahan, D. M. (2012). Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. In Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk (pp. 725–759). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_28
- Kahan, D. M., Jenkins‐Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
- Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., Tarantola, T., Silva, C. L., & Braman, D. (2015). Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-Channel Model of Science Communication. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 192–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214559002
- Kaplan, L. R., Farooque, M., Sarewitz, D., & Tomblin, D. (2021). Designing Participatory Technology Assessments: A Reflexive Method for Advancing the Public Role in Science Policy Decision-making. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 171, 120974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120974
- Kelemen, P., Benson, S. M., Pilorgé, H., Psarras, P., & Wilcox, J. (2019). An Overview of the Status and Challenges of CO2 Storage in Minerals and Geological Formations. Frontiers in Climate, 1. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fclim.2019.00009
- Klain, S. C., Olmsted, P., Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2017a). Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PLOS ONE, 12(8), e0183962. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0183962
- Klain, S. C., Olmsted, P., Chan, K. M., & Satterfield, T. (2017b). Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PloS One, 12(8), e0183962.
- L’Orange Seigo, S., Arvai, J., Dohle, S., & Siegrist, M. (2014). Predictors of risk and benefit perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in regions with different stages of deployment. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 25, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.03.007
- L׳Orange Seigo, S., Dohle, S., & Siegrist, M. (2014). Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38, 848–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.017
- Low, S., Baum, C. M., & Sovacool, B. K. (2022). Taking it outside: Exploring social opposition to 21 early-stage experiments in radical climate interventions. Energy Research & Social Science, 90, 102594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102594
- Low, S., & Buck, H. J. (2020). The practice of responsible research and innovation in “climate engineering.” WIREs Climate Change, 11(3), e644. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.644
- Markusson, N., McLaren, D., Szerszynski, B., Tyfield, D., & Willis, R. (2022). Life in the hole:Practices and emotions in the cultural political economy of mitigation deterrence. European Journal of Futures Research, 10(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-021-00186-z
- Markusson, N., McLaren, D., & Tyfield, D. (2018). Towards a cultural political economy of mitigation deterrence by negative emissions technologies (NETs). Global Sustainability, 1. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.10
- Minx, J. C., et al. (2018). Negative emissions—Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis. Environmental Research Letters, 13(6), 063001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9b
- Mitchell, S., Campbell, D., Vries, F. de, & Erdem, S. (2017, March 28). Exploring temporal and spatial preferences for climate change adaptation. International Choice Modelling Conference 2017. International Choice Modelling Conference 2017. http://www.icmconference.org.uk/index.php/icmc/ICMC2017/paper/view/1296
- Morrow, D. R., Thompson, M. S., Anderson, A., Batres, M., Buck, H. J., Dooley, K., Geden, O., Ghosh, A., Low, S., & Njamnshi, A. (2020). Principles for thinking about carbon dioxide removal in just climate policy. One Earth, 3(2), 150–153.
- National Academies of Sciences, E. (2021). A Research Strategy for Ocean-based Carbon Dioxide Removal and Sequestration. https://doi.org/10.17226/26278
- Nemet, G. F., Callaghan, M. W., Creutzig, F., Fuss, S., Hartmann, J., Hilaire, J., Lamb, W. F., Minx, J. C., Rogers, S., & Smith, P. (2018). Negative emissions—Part 3: Innovation and upscaling. Environmental Research Letters, 13(6), 063003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabff4
- Office of Clean Energy, 2022. Four Regional Clean Direct Air Capture Hubs. (n.d.). Energy.Gov. Retrieved August 3, 2022, from https://www.energy.gov/bil/four-regional-clean-direct-air-capture-hubs
- Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N., Abell, R., Brooks, T. M., Gittleman, J. L., Joppa, L. N., Raven, P. H., Roberts, C. M., & Sexton, J. O. (2014). The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science, 344(6187), 1246752. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246752
- Pollard, J. A., & Rose, D. C. (2019). Lightning Rods, Earthquakes, and Regional Identities: Towards a Multi-Scale Framework of Assessing Fracking Risk Perception. Risk Analysis, 39(2), 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13167
- Qiu, Y., Lamers, P., Daioglou, V., McQueen, N., de Boer, H.-S., Harmsen, M., Wilcox, J., Bardow, A., & Suh, S. (2022). Environmental trade-offs of direct air capture technologies in climate change mitigation toward 2100. Nature Communications, 13(1), 3635. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31146-1
- R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (4.0.3). R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
- Ravilious, K. (2022, March 2). Terrawatch: How carbon-eating rocks could help fight climate crisis. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/mar/02/terrawatch-how-carbon-eating-rocks-could-help-fight-climate-crisis
- Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2
- Satterfield, T., Conti, J., Harthorn, B. H., Pidgeon, N., & Pitts, A. (2013). Understanding shifting perceptions of nanotechnologies and their implications for policy dialogues about emerging technologies. Science and Public Policy, 40(2), 247–260.
- Satterfield, T., Kandlikar, M., Beaudrie, C. E., Conti, J., & Harthorn, B. H. (2009). Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(11), 752–758.
- Schubel and Helmer 2021. Justice and food security in a changing climate. (n.d.). Wageningen Academic Publishers Books. Retrieved August 2, 2022, from https://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/book/10.3920/978-90-8686-915-2
- Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20(2), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.202020
- Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20(5), 713–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.205064
- Solid Carbon: A Negative Emissions Technology Feasibility Study. (n.d.). PICS. Retrieved August 2, 2022, from http://pics.uvic.ca/research/articles/solid-carbon-negative-emissions-technology-feasibility-study
- Song, H., Hou, J., Yang, X., & Zhang, Y. (2022). The Impact of Risk Perception Difference of Members of a Scientific Research Project Team on Information Adoption: The Moderating Effect of Knowledge Inertia. Sustainability, 14(13), 7749.
- Soroka, S., Fournier, P., & Nir, L. (2019). Cross-national evidence of a negativity bias in psychophysiological reactions to news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(38), 18888–18892. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908369116
- Strefler, J., Amann, T., Bauer, N., Kriegler, E., & Hartmann, J. (2018). Potential and costs of carbon dioxide removal by enhanced weathering of rocks. Environmental Research Letters, 13(3), 034010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa9c4
- Swennenhuis, F., Mabon, L., Flach, T. A., & De Coninck, H. (2020). What role for CCS in delivering just transitions? An evaluation in the North Sea region. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 94, 102903.
- The Aspen Institute, 2021. Guidance for Ocean-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal Projects Report. (2021, December 7). The Aspen Institute. https://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/ocean-carbon-dioxide-removal/
- Tcvetkov, P., Cherepovitsyn, A., & Fedoseev, S. (2019). Public perception of carbon capture and storage: A state-of-the-art overview. Heliyon, 5(12), e02845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02845
- Temple and Crownhart, 2022. UN climate report: Carbon removal is now “essential.” (n.d.). MIT Technology Review. Retrieved August 5, 2022, from https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/04/1048832/un-climate-report-carbon-removal-is-now-essential/
- Thomas, G., Pidgeon, N., & Roberts, E. (2018). Ambivalence, naturalness and normality in public perceptions of carbon capture and storage in biomass, fossil energy, and industrial applications in the United Kingdom. Energy Research & Social Science, 46, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.06.007
- Tutolo, B. M., Awolayo, A., & Brown, C. (2021). Alkalinity Generation Constraints on Basalt Carbonation for Carbon Dioxide Removal at the Gigaton-per-Year Scale. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(17), 11906–11915. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c02733
- Wallquist, L., Visschers, V. H. M., Dohle, S., & Siegrist, M. (2012). The Role of Convictions and Trust for Public Protest Potential in the Case of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS). Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 18(4), 919–932. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2012.688719
- Winickoff, D. E., Flegal, J. A., & Asrat, A. (2015). Engaging the Global South on climate engineering research. Nature Climate Change, 5(7), 627–634. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2632
- Wynes, S., Zhao, J., & Donner, S. D. (2020). How well do people understand the climate impact of individual actions? Climatic Change, 162(3), 1521–1534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02811-5
Table 1: Explanatory variables
|
Variables |
Measurement scale |
Item or index used in regression analysis |
|
Explanatory variables—Project-related views |
|
|
|
Level of concern with components of a Solid Carbon project |
Six 5-point continuous interval questions |
Average numerical score of items loading onto each of two factors. Interval values ranged from: 1=Not at all concerned, to 5=Extremely concerned, with “don’t know/not sure” option also available. |
|
Perceived disadvantages/risks of a Solid Carbon pilot project |
10 5-point continuous interval questions
|
Average numerical score of items loading onto each of two factors. Interval values ranged from: 1=Does not increase my perceived risk, to 5=Strongly increases my perceived risk, with “don’t know/not sure” option also available |
|
Perceived advantages/benefits of a Solid Carbon pilot project
|
10 5-point continuous interval questions
|
Average numerical score of all items (as there was only one factor). Interval values ranged from: 1=Does not increase my perceived benefit, to 5=Strongly increases my perceived benefit, with “don’t know/not sure” option also available |
|
Explanatory variables—values |
||
|
Climate urgency scale (adapted from (Gregory et al., 2021; Hagerman et al., 2021) |
Six 5-point continuous interval questions |
Average numerical value across all statements |
|
Responsibility for nature (adapted from Klain et al., 2017) |
Six 5-point continuous interval questions |
Average numerical value of responses to statements loading onto ‘relationships and responsibility to nature’ factor |
|
Views on technology (adapted from (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1984) |
Three 5-point continuous interval questions |
Average numerical score across all statements |
|
Communitarian-Individualist (Kahan, 2012) |
Six 5-point continuous interval questions |
Average numerical score across all statements |
|
Egalitarian-Hierarchist (Kahan, 2012) |
Six 5-point continuous interval questions |
Average numerical score across all statements |
|
Trust in different actors (adapted from (Siegrist, 2000) |
10 5-point continuous interval questions |
Average numerical score, based on a cluster analysis with 2 cluster solutions: (1) Trustful, (2) Distrustful |
|
Views on government and regulations |
Five 5-point continuous interval questions |
Average numerical score across all statements
|
|
Explanatory variables—demographics |
||
|
Province/State (Washington) |
Multiple choice question |
Binary variable with two factors: (1) British Columbia; or (2) Washington |
|
Region (Coastal) |
Multiple choice question |
Binary variable with two factors: (1) lives in a coastal area; or (2) does not live in a coastal area |
|
Age |
One open-ended question with numeric value answer |
Numerical value |
|
Gender |
Multiple choice question |
Binary variable with two factors: (1) male; or (2) female |
|
Education |
One multiple choice question |
Ordinal value, where 1=less than high school degree and 6=Master’s degree |
Table 2. Predictors of support through opposition for Solid Carbon: Ordered logistic regression results for determinants of support through opposition for a Solid Carbon project in British Columbia or Washington to help meet the region's respective climate targets (n=2120). Odds ratio and confidence intervals are shown. Red indicates variables predicting opposition whereas green indicates support. Odds ratios can be interpreted as follows: for a one-unit increase in a sense of responsibility for nature, the odds of supporting Solid Carbon are 1.45 times higher before the tutorial, and 1.39 times higher after it. Significance levels are .0001 ‘***’, 0.001 ‘**’, 0.01 ‘*’, 0.05 ‘.’, 0.1 ‘ ’ .
