Livia Fritz , Chad M. Baum , Elina Brutschin , Sean Low , Benjamin K. Sovacool
{"title":"Climate beliefs, climate technologies and transformation pathways: Contextualizing public perceptions in 22 countries","authors":"Livia Fritz , Chad M. Baum , Elina Brutschin , Sean Low , Benjamin K. Sovacool","doi":"10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2024.102880","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>As emerging methods for carbon removal and controversial proposals around solar radiation modification are gaining traction in climate assessments and policy debates, a better understanding of how the public perceives these approaches is needed. Relying on qualitative data from 44 focus groups (n = 323 respondents), triangulated with a survey conducted in 22 countries (n = over 22 000 participants), we examine the role that climate change beliefs and attitudes towards climate action play in the formation of public perceptions of methods for carbon removal and solar radiation modification. We find that nationally varying degrees of perceived personal harm from climate change and climate worry predict support for these technologies. In addition to different perceptions of the problem, varying perceptions of the solution – i.e. the scope of climate action needed − shape publics’ assessment. Various tensions manifest themselves in publics’ reflections on the potential contribution of these climate technologies to climate action, including “buying time vs. delaying action”, “treating the symptoms vs. tackling the root causes”, and “urgency to act vs. effects only in the distant future”. We find that public perceptions are embedded in three broader narratives about transformation pathways, each reflecting varying notions of responsibility: (i) behavior change-centred pathways, (ii) top-down and industry-centred pathways, and (iii) technology-centred pathways. These results suggest that support for the deployment of the climate technologies studied hinges on them being tied to credible system-wide decarbonization efforts as well as their ability to effectively respond to a variety of perceived climate impacts.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":328,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Change","volume":"87 ","pages":"Article 102880"},"PeriodicalIF":8.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378024000840/pdfft?md5=9f4fe6097988537416ef4de8a87cf756&pid=1-s2.0-S0959378024000840-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Environmental Change","FirstCategoryId":"6","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378024000840","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
As emerging methods for carbon removal and controversial proposals around solar radiation modification are gaining traction in climate assessments and policy debates, a better understanding of how the public perceives these approaches is needed. Relying on qualitative data from 44 focus groups (n = 323 respondents), triangulated with a survey conducted in 22 countries (n = over 22 000 participants), we examine the role that climate change beliefs and attitudes towards climate action play in the formation of public perceptions of methods for carbon removal and solar radiation modification. We find that nationally varying degrees of perceived personal harm from climate change and climate worry predict support for these technologies. In addition to different perceptions of the problem, varying perceptions of the solution – i.e. the scope of climate action needed − shape publics’ assessment. Various tensions manifest themselves in publics’ reflections on the potential contribution of these climate technologies to climate action, including “buying time vs. delaying action”, “treating the symptoms vs. tackling the root causes”, and “urgency to act vs. effects only in the distant future”. We find that public perceptions are embedded in three broader narratives about transformation pathways, each reflecting varying notions of responsibility: (i) behavior change-centred pathways, (ii) top-down and industry-centred pathways, and (iii) technology-centred pathways. These results suggest that support for the deployment of the climate technologies studied hinges on them being tied to credible system-wide decarbonization efforts as well as their ability to effectively respond to a variety of perceived climate impacts.
期刊介绍:
Global Environmental Change is a prestigious international journal that publishes articles of high quality, both theoretically and empirically rigorous. The journal aims to contribute to the understanding of global environmental change from the perspectives of human and policy dimensions. Specifically, it considers global environmental change as the result of processes occurring at the local level, but with wide-ranging impacts on various spatial, temporal, and socio-political scales.
In terms of content, the journal seeks articles with a strong social science component. This includes research that examines the societal drivers and consequences of environmental change, as well as social and policy processes that aim to address these challenges. While the journal covers a broad range of topics, including biodiversity and ecosystem services, climate, coasts, food systems, land use and land cover, oceans, urban areas, and water resources, it also welcomes contributions that investigate the drivers, consequences, and management of other areas affected by environmental change.
Overall, Global Environmental Change encourages research that deepens our understanding of the complex interactions between human activities and the environment, with the goal of informing policy and decision-making.