Perceptions of geoengineering: Public attitudes, stakeholder perspectives, and the challenge of 'upstream' engagement

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change

Volumn 3, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 451-466

  Corner, Adam ^a   Pidgeon, Nick ^a   Parkhill, Karen ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

TECHNOLOGY;

ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGES; CIVIL SOCIETY; GENERAL PUBLICS; GEOENGINEERING; PLANETARY ENVIRONMENTS; PUBLIC ATTITUDES; RESEARCH PRIORITIES;

CLIMATE CHANGE;

EID: 84865188273     PISSN: 17577780     EISSN: 17577799     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/wcc.176     Document Type: Review

References (96)

1. Royal Society. Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty. Science Policy Centre Report 10/09. London: The Royal Society; 2009.
2. Fleming JR. Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control. New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 2010.
3. American Meteorological Society. Draft Policy Statement on Geoengineering the Climate System, 2009. Available at: www.ametsoc.org/policy/draftstatements.
4. Crutzen, PJ. Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulphur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change 2006, 77:211-220.
5. Corner A, Pidgeon NF. Geoengineering the climate: the social and ethical implications. Environ Sci Policy Sust Dev 2010, 52:24-37.
6. Gardiner SM. Some early ethics of geoengineering the climate: a commentary on the values of the Royal Society report. Environ Values 2011, 20:163-188.
7. Blackstock JJ, Battisti DS, Caldeira K, Eardley DM, Katz JI, Keith DW, Patrinos AAN, Schrag DP, Socolow RH, Koonin SE. Climate Engineering Responses to Climate Emergencies. Novim, 2009. Available at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.5140.
8. Asilomar Scientific Organizing Committee. The Asilomar Conference Recommendations on Principles for Research into Climate Engineering Techniques. Washington, DC: Climate Institute; 2010.
9. United States Government Accountability Office. Climate Engineering: Technical status, future directions, and potential responses. US, Washington, GAO-11-71, 2011.
10. Rickels W, Klepper G, Dovern J, Betz G, Brachatzek N, Cacean S, Güssow K, Heintzenberg J, Hiller S, Hoose C, et al. Large-Scale Intentional Interventions into the Climate System? Assessing the Climate Engineering Debate. Scoping report conducted on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Kiel Earth Institute, Kiel, 2011.
11. Irvine PJ, Ridgwell A, Lunt DJ. Climatic effects of surface albedo geoengineering. J Geophys Res 2011, 116:D24112.
12. Caldeira K, Wood L. Global and Arctic climate engineering: numerical model studies. Philos Trans R Soc A 2008, 366:4039-4056.
13. Bipartisan Policy Centre Task Force on Climate Remediation Research. Geoengineering: A national strategic plan for research on the potential effectiveness, feasibility, and consequences of climate remediation technologies. Washington, DC: Bipartisan Policy Centre, 2011.
14. Angel R. Feasibility of cooling the Earth with a cloud of small spacecraft near the inner Lagrange point (L1). Proc Natl Acad Sci 2006, 103:17184-17189.
15. Latham J, Rasch P, Chen CC, Kettles L, Gadian A, Gettelman A, Morrison H, Bower K, Choularton T. Global temperature stabilization via controlled albedo enhancement of low-level maritime clouds. Philos Trans R Soc A 2008, 366:3969-3987.
16. Lenton T, Vaughan N. The radiative forcing potential of different climate engineering options. Atmos Chem Phys Discuss 2009, 9:2559-2608.
17. 2 capture from the air. Climatic Change 2005, 74:17-45.
18. Jamieson D. Ethics and intentional climate change. Climatic Change 1999, 33:323-336.
19. Svoboda T, Keller K, Goes M, Tuana N. Sulfate aerosol geoengineering: the question of justice. Public Aff Q 2011, 25:157-179.
20. Rayner S, Redgwell C, Sauvulescu J, Pidgeon N, Kruger T. Draft principles for the conduct of geoengineering research (the 'Oxford Principles'). Reproduced in House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, The Regulation of Geoengineering, Fifth Report of the session 2009-2010, HC221, 18th March 2010.
21. O'Keefe S, Herzog, HJ. Trends in Public Attitudes on Global Warming Key Findings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Carbon Sequestration Initiative; 2009. Available at: http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/2009Survey_Graphic_Summary_Appendix.pdf.
22. Poumadere M, Bertoldo R, Samadi J. Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: nuclear, power, carbon capture and storage, wind and geoengineering. WIREs Climate Change 2011, 2:712-727.
23. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Smith N. Climate Change in the American Mind: Americans' Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in June 2010. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, 2010.
24. Spence A, Venables D, Pidgeon N, Poortinga W, Demski C. Public Perceptions of Climate Change and Energy Futures in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted in January-March 2010. Technical Report (Understanding Risk Working Paper 10-01). Cardiff: School of Psychology, 2010. Available from www.understanding-risk.org.
25. Mercer A, Keith D, Sharp J. Public understanding of solar radiation management. Environ Res Lett 2011, 6. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044006.
26. Pidgeon N, Corner A, Parkhill K, Spence A, Butler C. Public perceptions of geoengineering-knowledge, risk and acceptability. Philos Trans R Soc A. In press.
27. Bostrom A, O'Connor RE, Bohm G, Hanss D, Bodi O, Ekstrom F, Halder P, Jeschke S, Mack B, Qu M, et al. Causal thinking and support for climate change policies: International survey findings. Global Environmental Change. In press.
28. Bellamy R, Hulme M. Beyond the tipping point: understanding perceptions of abrupt climate change and their implications. Weather, Clim Soc 2011, 3:48-60.
29. Douglas M, Wildavsky A. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1982.
30. Kahan D, Jenkins-Smith H, Tarantola T, Silva CL, Braman D. Geoengineering and the science communication environment: a cross-cultural experiment. Cultural Cognition Working Paper 92, 2012.
31. Kahan D, Jenkins-Smith H, Braman D. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res 2010, 14:1-28.
32. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G. Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 2009, 4:87-90.
33. Irwin A, B. Wynne, eds. Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 2006.
34. Lichtenstein S, Slovic P. The Construction of Preference.Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 2006.
35. Fischhoff B, Fischhoff I. Publics' opinions of biotechnologies. AgBiotech Forum 2002, 4:155-162.
36. Kurath M, Gisler P. Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio-, and nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 2009, 18:559-573.
37. Macnaghten P, Kearnes MB, Wynne B. Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Sci Commun 2005, 27, 268-291.
38. Stilgoe J, Irwin A, Jones K. The Received Wisdom: Opening up Expert Advice. London, UK:Demos; 2006.
39. Stirling A. Analysis, participation, power: justification and closure in participatory multi-criteria analysis, Land Use Policy 2006, 23:95-107.
40. Wilsdon J, Wynne B, Stilgoe J. The Public Value of Science: Or How to Ensure that Science Really Matters. London, UK: Demos; 2005.
41. Hagendijk R, Irwin A. Public deliberation and governance: engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva 2006, 44:167-184.
42. Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon NF. Moving engagement "upstream"? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering inquiry. Public Underst Sci 2007, 16:346-364.
43. Royal Society & the Royal Academy of Engineering. Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. RS Policy Document 19/04, 2004.
44. Wilsdon J, Willis R. See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London, UK: Demos; 2004.
45. Walls J, Rogers-Hayden T, Mohr A, O'Riordan T. Seeking citizens' views on GM Crops-experiences from the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Environment 2005, 47:22-36.
46. Stirling A. Deliberate futures: precaution and progress in social choice of sustainable technology. Sust Dev 2007, 15:286-295.
47. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Novel Materials in the Environment: The Case of Nanotechnology.: Twenty-seventh report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, UK, 2008.
48. Dietz T, Stern PC, eds. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academies Press; 2008.
49. Fiorino D. Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 1990, 15:226-243.
50. Ipsos-MORI. Experiment Earth: Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering. Swindon: Natural Environment Research Council; 2010. Available at: www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/geoengineering-dialogue-final-report.pdf.
51. Corner A, Parkhill K, Pidgeon N. 'Experiment Earth?' Reflections on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering. In: Understanding Risk Working Paper 11-02, 2011, Cardiff, School of Psychology.
52. Slovic P. The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan; 2000.
53. Hulme M. Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 2010.
54. Parkhill K, Pidgeon N. Public Engagement on Geoengineering Research: Preliminary Report on the SPICE Deliberative Workshops. In: Understanding Risk Working Paper 11-01, 2011. Cardiff, School of Psychology.
55. Corner A, Pidgeon N. Nanotechnologies and upstream engagement: dilemmas, debates and prospects. In: Harthorn BH, Mohr J, eds. The Social Life of Nanotechnology. Routledge. In press.
56. Gavelin K, Wilson R, Doubleday R. Democratic Technologies? The Final Report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group. London, UK: Involve; 2007.
57. Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, Bryant K, Rogers-Hayden T. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat Nanotechnol 2009, 4:95-98.
58. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR. Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In: Krimsky S, Golding D, eds. Social Theories of Risk. Westport, CT: Praeger; 1992.
59. Barben D, Fisher E, Selin C, Guston D. Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement and integration. In: Hackett, EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J, eds. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2008.
60. Bloomfield BP, Vurdubakis T. Disrupted boundaries: new reproductive technologies and the language of anxiety and expectation. Soc Stud Sci 1995, 25:533-551.
61. Macnaghten P. Researching technoscientific concerns in the making: narrative structures, public responses, and emerging nanotechnologies. Environ Plan A 2010, 42:23-37.
62. Bickerstaff K, Simmons P, Pidgeon N. Constructing responsibility for risk(s): negotiating citizen-state relationships. Environ Plan A 2008, 40:1312-1330.
63. Jasanoff S. Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 2003, 41:223-244.
64. Wynne B. Knowledges in context. Sci Technol Hum Values 1991, 15:111-121.
65. Hartz-Karp J. How and why deliberative democracy enables co-intelligence and brings wisdom to governance. J Pub Deliberation 2007, 3:1-9.
66. World Wide Views on Global Warming. Available at: http://www.wwviews.org/files/images/WWViews_info_sheet-v80-27_September%2009.pdf. (Accessed October 2, 2009).
67. Marris C. Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. EMBO Rep 2001, 21:545-548.
68. Stilgoe J. Nanodialogues: Experiments in Public Engagement with Science. London, UK: Demos; 2007.
69. Blackstock JJ, Battisti DS, Caldeira K, Eardley DM, Katz JI, Keith DW, Patrinos AAN, Schrag DP, Socolow RH, et al. Climate Engineering Responses to Climatic Emergencies. Santa Barbara, CA: Novim; 2009.
70. Keith DW, Dowlatabadi H. A serious look at geoengineering. Trans Am Geophys Union 1992, 73:289-293.
71. Caldeira K, Keith DW. The need for climate engineering research. Issues in Science and Technology 2010, 27:57-62.
72. Robock A. 20 Reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Bull At Sci 2008, 64:14-18.
73. Schneider SH. Geoengineering: could we or should we make it work? Philos Trans R Soc A 2008, 366: 3843-3862.
74. Institute of Mechanical Engineers. Climate Change: Have We Lost the Battle? London, UK: Institute of Mechanical Engineers; 2009.
75. Nerlich B, Jaspal R. Metaphors We Die By? Geoengineering, Metaphors, and the Argument From Catastrophe. Metaphor and Symbol 2012, 27:131-147.
76. Nordhaus WD. Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1994.
77. Schelling TC. The economic diplomacy of geoengineering. Climatic Change 1996, 33:303-307.
78. Barrett S. The incredible economics of geoengineering. Environ Resour Econ 2008, 39:45-54.
79. Goes M, Tuanna N, Keller K. The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering. Climatic Change 2011, 109:719-744.
80. Victor D.G. On the regulation of geoengineering. Ox Rev Econ Policy 2008, 24:322-336.
81. 2 from ambient air. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2011, 108:20428-20433.
82. Hamilton C. Ethical Anxieties About Geoengineering: Moral hazard, slippery slope and playing God. In: Paper presented to a conference of the Australian Academy of Science Canberra, 27 September 2011.
83. Svoboda T, Keller K, Goes M, Tuana N. Sulfate aerosol engineering: the question of justice. Public Aff Q 2011, 25:157-179.
84. ETC Group. Geopiracy-The Case Against Geoengineering. Manila: ETC group; 2010.
85. Heartland Institute. Geo-Engineering Seen as a Practical, Cost-Effective Global Warming Strategy, 2007. Available at: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2007/12/01/geo-engineering-seen-practical-cost-effective-global-warming-strategy.
86. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Decision X/33 (Biodiversity and climate change). Nagoya: Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity tenth meeting (COP10), 2010.
87. Solar Radiation Management Government Initiative. Solar Radiation Management: The Governance of Research, 2011. Available at: http://www.srmgi.org/files/2012/01/DES2391_SRMGI-report_web_11112.pdf.
88. Pidgeon N, Kasperson R, Slovic P, eds. The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
89. Fleming JR. Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control. New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 2010.
90. Gardiner SM. Some early ethics of geoengineering the climate: a commentary on the values of the Royal Society report. Environmental Values 2011, 20:163-188.
91. Ipsos-MORI. Experiment Earth: Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering. Swindon: Natural Environment Research Council, 2010. Available at: www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/geoengineering-dialogue-final-report.pdf.
92. Jamieson D. Ethics and intentional climate change. Climatic Change 1999, 33:323-336.
93. Parkhill K, Pidgeon N. Public Engagement on Geoengineering Research: Preliminary Report on the SPICE Deliberative Workshops. In: Understanding Risk Working Paper 11-01. Cardiff, School of Psychology, 2011.
94. Poumadere M, Bertoldo R, Samadi J. Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: nuclear, power, carbon capture and storage, wind and geoengineering. WIRE Climate Change 2011, 2:712-727.
95. Rayner S, Redgwell C, Sauvulescu J, Pidgeon N, Kruger T. Draft principles for the conduct of geoengineering research (the 'Oxford Principles'). Reproduced in House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. The Regulation of Geoengineering, Fifth Report of the session 2009-2010, HC221, 18th March 2010.
96. Royal Society. Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty. Science Policy Centre Report 10/09. London: The Royal Society; 2009.