Global Surveys Challenge Assumptions on Public Opinion of SRM

[Chris Vivian]

All,

 

See this post from SRM360 - https://srm360.org/perspective/global-surveys-challenge-assumptions-public-opinion/.

 

Chris.

 

[John Nissen]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for finding this from SRM360.  One wonders what the subjects of the survey were told about SAI and MCB: their risks and benefits, especially the benefits.  But the overall results are very interesting. whatever was said..

I was particularly taken by the cigarette diagram, which showed that the high income public take a less favourable attitude to SRM and other interventions than the middle income people.  The low income population, most affected by climate change already, would presumably be even more favourable than the middle income people.  This suggests that the "I'm all right, Jack" attitude is strong among the wealthy: "Why risk intervening?".  The high income population may also be most aware of the anti-geoengineering campaigns by the likes of "Hands Off Mother Earth", which promote the idea that geoengineering is intrinsically high risk by its very nature.  As they point out, vocal minorities can have outsized influence.  But also, fear is a strong motivator: the negative can be stronger than the positive.  It behoves us to sing the praises of SRM, and particularly SAI, in contexts where we can gain the trust of our audience.

This section was quite revealing:

More of the public support SRM than reject it

Contrary to common belief, there is little evidence that global publics broadly reject the idea of SRM. Those who “strictly reject” the broad deployment of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), for instance, amounted to 12% across the world.⁶ In contrast, almost 20% of the participants “fully support” the deployment of SAI. The proportion that supports small-scale field trials is higher still, at 57% of those surveyed.

We found that support for SRM was driven by several motivating factors. These included how much one is worried about climate change and how negatively impacted one expects to be now and in the future.² We also found that the level of trust in certain actors matters, specifically the firms and companies in the climate technology sector and/or national governments.⁶ Lastly, the belief that science and technology will eventually find a solution to climate change is also crucial.^3,6

Nevertheless, the support for SRM technologies was much lower than for other climate interventions. Ecosystems-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR) options received the most support, with novel engineered CDR approaches in the middle.

We found that SRM approaches, and SAI in particular, were the most divisive of the options considered. Even if only a relatively small segment of the population outright rejected these options, vocal minorities can have an outsized influence on how discussions evolve.

Cheers, John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/15fe01dbf59b%24f3efda00%24dbcf8e00%24%40btinternet.com.