Perceptions of climate engineering in the South Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, and North American Arctic (original) (raw)

Abstract

Nearly all research on public perceptions of climate engineering has been conducted in wealthy, developed countries. However, understanding perspectives from vulnerable populations is critical to inclusive, democratic debate on both research and governance. This study utilized in-depth interviews to explore the perspectives of vulnerable populations in the South Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the North American Arctic. Interviewees in this study were desperate for solutions to climate change and therefore willing to consider climate engineering. However, their willingness to consider climate engineering could be characterized as both deeply reluctant and highly conditional. Interviewees expressed a number of concerns about potential social and political implications of engineering the climate. They also described conditions that may need to be met to ensure that future climates (engineered or otherwise) are more equitable.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

• Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
• Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
• Cancel anytime View plans

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

1. Of the block quotes below, 46% are from interviewees in Alaska, 33% from Kenya, and 21% from the Solomon Islands.

References

• African Academy of Sciences, Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (2013) Governance of research on solar geoengineering: African perspectives. Consolidated report of three workshops in Senegal, South Africa, and Ethiopia. African Academy of Sciences and Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative, Nairobi
• Beyerl K, Maas A (2014) Perspectives on climate engineering from Pacific small island states IASS Working Paper. Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Potsdam
  Google Scholar
• Bickerstaff K, Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon NF, Poortinga W, Simmons P (2008) Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste. Public Underst Sci 17:145–169
  Article Google Scholar
• Boyd R, Stern NH, Ward B (2015) What will global annual emissions of greenhouse gases be in 2030, and will they be consistent with avoiding global warming of more than 2°C? ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London
• Burns ET, Flegal JA, Keith DW, Mahajan A, Tingley D, Wagner G (2016) What do people think about when they think about solar engineering? A review of empirical social science literature, and prospects for future research. Earth’s Future 4:536–542
  Article Google Scholar
• Cairns R (2015) Public perceptions of geoengineering. Opinion Article, Geoengineering Our Climate Working Paper and Opinion Article Series. Available at: http://wp.me/p2zsRkbQ
• Carr W, Preston CJ (2017) Skewed vulnerabilities and moral corruption in global perspectives on climate engineering. Environmental Values 26(6):757–777
• 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
  Article Google Scholar
• Corner A, Venables D, Spence A, Poortinga W, Demski C, Pidgeon N (2011) Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: exploring British public attitudes. Energy Policy 39:4823–4833
  Article Google Scholar
• 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
  Article Google Scholar
• Crutzen P (2006) Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Clim Chang 77:211–220
  Article Google Scholar
• Farbotko C, Lazrus H (2012) The first climate refugees? Contesting global narratives of climate change in Tuvalu. Adding insult to injury: climate change, social stratification, and the inequities of intervention. Glob Environ Chang 22(2):382–390
  Article Google Scholar
• Flegal J, Gupta A (2017) Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? Scrutinizing emerging expert visions of equity. Int Environ Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-017-9377-6
• Friedman W (2007) Reframing framing. Public Agenda, Washington DC
  Google Scholar
• Hesse-Biber SN, Leavy P (2006) The practice of qualitative research. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
  Google Scholar
• Horton J, Keith DW (2016) Solar geoengineering and obligations to the global poor. In: Preston CJ (ed) Climate justice and geoengineering: ethics and policy in the atmospheric Anthropocene. Rowman & Littlefield International, London
  Google Scholar
• IPCC (2014) Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 1–32
• Jasanoff S (2005) ‘Let them eat cake’: GM foods and the democratic imagination. In: Leach M, Scoones I, Wynne B (eds) Science and citizens: globalization and the challenge of engagement. Zed Books, New York
  Google Scholar
• Jasanoff S, Wynne B (1998) Science and decision-making. In: Rayner S, Malone E (eds) Human choice and climate change, Vol. 1. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH
  Google Scholar
• Keith DW (2013) A case for climate engineering. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
  Google Scholar
• Keith DW (2017) Toward a responsible solar geoengineering research program. Issues Sci Technol XXXIII(3)
• Leach M, Scoones I, Wynne B (2005) Science and citizens: globalization and the challenge of engagement. Zed Books, New York
  Google Scholar
• Macnaghten P, Szerszynski B (2013) Living the global social experiment: an analysis of public discourse on solar radiation management and its implications for governance. Glob Environ Chang 23:465–474
  Article Google Scholar
• Merk C, Ponitzsch G, Kniebes C, Rehdanz K, Schmidt U (2015) Exploring public perceptions of stratospheric sulfate injection. Clim Chang 130:299–312
  Article Google Scholar
• Moreno-Cruz J, Ricke K, Keith DW (2012) A simple model to account for regional inequalities in the effectiveness of solar radiation management. Clim Chang 110(3):649–668
  Article Google Scholar
• ND-GAIN (2014) University of Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index. www.gain.org. Accessed 18 Feb 2015
• Patterson ME, Williams DR (2002) Collecting and analyzing qualitative data: hermeneutic principles, methods, and case examples. Sagamore Publishing, Champaign, IL
  Google Scholar
• Pidgeon N, Parkhill K, Corner A, Vaughan N (2013) Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nat Clim Chang 3:451–457
  Article Google Scholar
• Preston CJ (2012) Solar radiation management and vulnerable populations: the moral deficit and it prospects. In: Preston CJ (ed) Engineering the climate: the ethics of solar radiation management. Lexington Books, Lanham, MD
  Google Scholar
• Rubin HJ, Rubin I (2005) Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
  Book Google Scholar
• Stilgoe J (2015) Experiment earth: responsible innovation in geoengineering. Routledge, New York
  Google Scholar
• Suarez P, van Aalst MK (2017) Geoengineering: a humanitarian concern. Earth’s Future 5:183–195
  Article Google Scholar
• Suarez P, Banerjee B, de Suarez JM (2013) Geoengineering and the humanitarian challenge: What role for the most vulnerable? Geoengineering Our Climate Working Paper and Opinion Article Series. Available at: http://wp.me/p2zsRk-8H
• Sugiyama M, Kosgi T, Ishii A, Asayama S (2016) Public attitudes to climate engineering research and field experiments: preliminary results of a web survey on students’ perception in six Asia-Pacific countries. Policy Alternatives Research Institute. Working Paper No. 24
• Walmsley H (2009) Mad scientists bend the frame of biobank governance in British Columbia. J Public Deliberation 5:6
• Washington Geoengineering Consortium (2013) A civil society meeting on geoengineering: summary and synthesis. Washington Geoengineering Consortium, Washington DC
  Google Scholar
• Whyte KP (2012) Now this! Indigenous sovereignty, political obliviousness and governance models for SRM research. Ethics, Policy Environ 15:172–187
  Article Google Scholar
• Winickoff DE, Flegal JA, Asrat A (2015) Engaging the global south on climate engineering research. Nat Clim Chang 5:627–634
  Article Google Scholar
• Wynne B (2005) Risk as globalizing ‘democratic’ discourse? Framing subjects and citizens. In: Leach M, Scoones I, Wynne B (eds) Science and citizens: globalization and the challenge of engagement. Zed Books, New York
  Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA, USA
   Wylie A. Carr
2. University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA
   Laurie Yung

Authors

1. Wylie A. Carr
2. Laurie Yung

Corresponding author

Correspondence toWylie A. Carr.

Additional information

The research presented in this article was conducted by Wylie Carr when he was a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Montana. This publication has not been formally reviewed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The views expressed in this article are those of W. Carr and L. Yung and do not necessarily reflect those of the FWS. The FWS does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carr, W.A., Yung, L. Perceptions of climate engineering in the South Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, and North American Arctic.Climatic Change 147, 119–132 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2138-x

Download citation

• Received: 03 May 2017
• Accepted: 03 January 2018
• Published: 24 January 2018
• Version of record: 24 January 2018
• Issue date: March 2018
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2138-x