Public evaluations of four approaches to ocean-based carbon dioxide removal

ABSTRACT In the face of mounting global climatic pressures, negative emission technologies (NETs) for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) are increasingly proposed as necessary for meeting climate targets. While initial work has identified the potential of terrestrial NETs, a diverse set of marine/ocean-based NETs are gaining new and particular attention. Emerging studies on the feasibility of marine NETs are urgently needed, especially to explore the logics that public groups use to judge different approaches, and to ensure that design and governance of these technologies align with public values and priorities. This study explores factors of interest in understanding public views on four marine NETs, both perceptions of climate severity and urgency, and beliefs about marine environments. It uses a quantitative survey to explore how a representative sample of people in British Columbia, Canada and Washington state, United States evaluate four marine NETs: coastal restoration; ocean alkalinity enhancement; ocean fertilization; and offshore direct air carbon capture and storage. We find that perceived severity and urgency of climate change predicts greater comfort with all NETs studied, and views of marine environments as adaptable, fragile and manageable vary in predicting both greater and lesser comfort. Drawing upon these insights, the paper offers reflections on the conditional thinking linked with emerging views of marine NETs, concluding with methodological suggestions for future research on public perceptions as concerns the deployment of ocean-based CDR near and long term. Incorporating these insights into policy for ocean-based CDR will be important to ensuring responsible governance of these technologies. Key policy insights Incorporating research on public perceptions will be important to the design of marine NETs and accompanying policies. Public groups in both British Columbia and Washington expressed high levels of comfort with coastal restoration, some comfort with offshore direct air carbon capture and storage, and some discomfort with ocean alkalinity enhancement and ocean fertilization. Perceived severity and urgency of climate change predicted greater comfort with all approaches; this evidence aligns with a small but growing body of scholarship indicating openness to environmental intervention amongst public groups concerned with climate impacts. Beliefs about marine environments, namely whether they are ‘adaptable’, ‘manageable’ or ‘fragile’, also predicted comfort, suggesting that CDR in ocean contexts requires further examination regarding public perceptions.

[1]  T. Satterfield,et al.  Exploring public acceptability of direct air carbon capture with storage: climate urgency, moral hazards and perceptions of the ‘whole versus the parts’ , 2023, Climatic Change.

[2]  T. Satterfield,et al.  Sociotechnical Considerations About Ocean Carbon Dioxide Removal. , 2022, Annual Review of Marine Science.

[3]  Amy Janzwood,et al.  Bridge fuel feuds: The competing interpretive politics of natural gas in Canada , 2022, Energy Research & Social Science.

[4]  E. McKinley,et al.  Public Perceptions of the Ocean: Lessons for Marine Conservation From a Global Research Review , 2021, Frontiers in Marine Science.

[5]  E. Hobman,et al.  Genetically Engineering Coral for Conservation: Psychological Correlates of Public Acceptability , 2021, Frontiers in Marine Science.

[6]  Sam Mulopulos After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair, and RestorationHolly JeanBuck (London: Verso, 2019) , 2021, PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review.

[7]  Oleg Sobchuk Cultural Theory , 2021, Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture.

[8]  R. Gregory,et al.  Social comfort zones for transformative conservation decisions in a changing climate , 2021, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[9]  S. Sweet,et al.  Perceptions of naturalness predict US public support for Soil Carbon Storage as a climate solution , 2021, Climatic Change.

[10]  R. Gregory,et al.  Under pressure: conservation choices and the threat of species extinction , 2021, Climatic Change.

[11]  Wim Carton,et al.  Undoing Equivalence: Rethinking Carbon Accounting for Just Carbon Removal , 2021, Frontiers in Climate.

[12]  Rob Bellamy,et al.  Casting a Wider Net on Ocean NETs , 2021, Frontiers in Climate.

[13]  A Research Strategy for Ocean-based Carbon Dioxide Removal and Sequestration , 2021 .

[14]  J. Gattuso,et al.  The Potential for Ocean-Based Climate Action: Negative Emissions Technologies and Beyond , 2021, Frontiers in Climate.

[15]  Christine Bertram,et al.  Public Perceptions of Ocean-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal: The Nature-Engineering Divide? , 2020, Frontiers in Climate.

[16]  Adeniyi P. Asiyanbi,et al.  Negative emissions and the long history of carbon removal , 2020, WIREs Climate Change.

[17]  J. Wilcox,et al.  Principles for Thinking about Carbon Dioxide Removal in Just Climate Policy , 2020 .

[18]  H. Buck Should carbon removal be treated as waste management? Lessons from the cultural history of waste , 2020, Interface Focus.

[19]  N. Pidgeon,et al.  Public perceptions of carbon dioxide removal in the United States and the United Kingdom , 2020, Nature Climate Change.

[20]  L. Kahlor,et al.  Understanding public support for carbon capture and storage policy: The roles of social capital, stakeholder perceptions, and perceived risk/benefit of technology , 2020 .

[21]  S. Hynes,et al.  Public Perceptions of Deep-Sea Environment: Evidence From Scotland and Norway , 2020, Frontiers in Marine Science.

[22]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Support for the Deployment of Climate Engineering: A Comparison of Ten Different Technologies , 2020, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[23]  S. Rayner,et al.  Cultural Theory and Risk , 2008, Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication.

[24]  R. Moser,et al.  The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine , 2020, The Grants Register 2021.

[25]  Shannon Osaka,et al.  Unnatural climate solutions? , 2019, Nature Climate Change.

[26]  A. Cherepovitsyn,et al.  Public perception of carbon capture and storage: A state-of-the-art overview , 2019, Heliyon.

[27]  S. Nicholson,et al.  The hidden politics of climate engineering , 2019, Nature Geoscience.

[28]  Philip E. Steinberg,et al.  The ocean in excess: Towards a more-than-wet ontology , 2019, Dialogues in Human Geography.

[29]  H. Thorén,et al.  Three perspectives on relational values of nature , 2019, Sustainability Science.

[30]  Robyn S. Wilson,et al.  Developing a Broadly Applicable Measure of Risk Perception , 2018, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[31]  Jessica Lehman The Technopolitics of Ocean Sensing , 2019, Blue Legalities.

[32]  Stacy Alaimo Adequate Imaginaries for Anthropocene Seas , 2019, Blue Legalities.

[33]  M. B. Collins,et al.  Perceiving resilience: understanding people’s intuitions about the qualities of air, water, and soil , 2018 .

[34]  N. Pidgeon,et al.  Ambivalence, naturalness and normality in public perceptions of carbon capture and storage in biomass, fossil energy, and industrial applications in the United Kingdom , 2018, Energy Research & Social Science.

[35]  Raychelle Daniel,et al.  An Indigenous approach to ocean planning and policy in the Bering Strait region of Alaska , 2018, Marine Policy.

[36]  N. Pidgeon,et al.  UK public perceptions of Ocean Acidification – The importance of place and environmental identity , 2018, Marine Policy.

[37]  A. Oschlies,et al.  Ocean Solutions to Address Climate Change and Its Effects on Marine Ecosystems , 2018, Front. Mar. Sci..

[38]  H. Lotze,et al.  Public perceptions of marine threats and protection from around the world , 2018 .

[39]  M. Hulme,et al.  Geoengineering at the “Edge of the World”: Exploring perceptions of ocean fertilisation through the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation , 2018 .

[40]  Jay D. Hmielowski,et al.  Public perceptions of carbon capture and storage in Canada: Results of a national survey , 2017 .

[41]  Benjamin D. Trump,et al.  Public perceptions of climate geoengineering: a systematic review of the literature , 2017 .

[42]  Sarah C. Klain,et al.  Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm , 2017, PloS one.

[43]  Kimberly S. Wolske,et al.  The influence of learning about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on support for mitigation policies , 2017, Climatic Change.

[44]  Leslie Mabon,et al.  Challenges for social impact assessment in coastal regions: A case study of the Tomakomai CCS Demonstration Project , 2017 .

[45]  Bethan C. O’Leary,et al.  Public awareness and attitudes towards marine protection in the United Kingdom. , 2016, Marine pollution bulletin.

[46]  K. Ingersoll Waves of Knowing: A Seascape Epistemology , 2016 .

[47]  Holly Jean Buck,et al.  Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social implications , 2016, Climatic Change.

[48]  Anja Walter,et al.  The Social Construction Of The Ocean , 2016 .

[49]  D. Winickoff,et al.  Engaging the Global South on climate engineering research , 2015 .

[50]  Kimberley Peters,et al.  Wet Ontologies, Fluid Spaces: Giving Depth to Volume through Oceanic Thinking , 2015 .

[51]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): A review , 2014 .

[52]  Simon Shackley,et al.  Perceptions of sub-seabed carbon dioxide storage in Scotland and implications for policy: A qualitative study , 2014 .

[53]  Diana Schumann,et al.  Public Perception of CO2 Offshore Storage in Germany: Regional Differences and Determinants , 2014 .

[54]  Samuel Höller,et al.  Does it make a difference to the public where CO2 comes from and where it is stored? : An experimental approach to enhance understanding of CCS perceptions , 2014 .

[55]  A. Corner,et al.  Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project , 2013 .

[56]  M. Gorman,et al.  A framework for responsible innovation , 2013 .

[57]  Ibo van de Poel,et al.  The ethics of nuclear power: Social experiments, intergenerational justice, and emotions , 2012 .

[58]  Timothy M. Lenton,et al.  A review of climate geoengineering appraisals , 2012 .

[59]  Rafaela Hillerbrand,et al.  Handbook of risk theory : epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk , 2012 .

[60]  Marc Poumadère,et al.  Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, wind, and geoengineering , 2011 .

[61]  Rune Haubo,et al.  Analysis of ordinal data with cumulative link models — estimation with the R-package ordinal , 2011 .

[62]  P. Devine‐Wright,et al.  Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case study , 2010 .

[63]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Impact of knowledge and misconceptions on benefit and risk perception of CCS. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[64]  Gene Rowe,et al.  Lay perceptions of carbon capture and storage technology , 2010 .

[65]  A. Agresti Analysis of Ordinal Categorical Data: Agresti/Analysis , 2010 .

[66]  Electo Eduardo Silva Lora,et al.  Biofuels: Environment, technology and food security , 2009 .

[67]  Dan M. Kahan,et al.  Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk , 2008 .

[68]  A. Stirling “Opening Up” and “Closing Down” , 2008 .

[69]  J. Giles Norway sinks ocean carbon study , 2002, Nature.

[70]  K. L. Feldman,et al.  Oysters, crabs, and burrowing shrimp: Review of an environmental conflict over aquatic resources and pesticide use in Washington State’s (USA) coastal estuaries , 2000 .

[71]  M. Siegrist The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[72]  R. Dunlap,et al.  Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale , 2000 .

[73]  Steve Rayner,et al.  Cultural theory and risk analysis , 1992 .

[74]  M. Douglas,et al.  Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers , 1983 .

[75]  H. Kaiser A second generation little jiffy , 1970 .

[76]  S. Shapiro,et al.  An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples) , 1965 .

[77]  M. Bartlett THE EFFECT OF STANDARDIZATION ON A χ2 APPROXIMATION IN FACTOR ANALYSIS , 1951 .