This line of reasoning is logically flawed and is one of the best examples of how the role of CDR is misunderstood and distorted by others who have an anti technology orientation that pervaded the original environmental movement.
It is logically flawed because it is normal for people to react to news that a new solution exists, CDR ,to a problem they thought they could solve by renewable energy, emissions reductions and conservation . The 2014 IPCC report confirmed what many knew that those processes are not adequate for avoiding a climate disaster and that CDR is needed. So switching ones emphasis to CDR solution that can solve the problem from ones that cannot makes sense- to not change ones emphasis is illogical. The original approach has its origins in the original environmental movement in which renewable energy , emissions reductions ,and energy conservation were the central tenets. The latter two garnered the support of the people who believe industrialization and human consumption is the real problem and want us to change. The two are combined in the moral hazard argument - eg CDR will reduce our commitment to the previous plan and will also be a technological fix that will argue against the fundamental tenet of the early environmental supporters - human development has to harm the environment so we have to reduce our footprint to zero. On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > Poster's note: I'm working in this field, and the divide between liberals > and conservatives is discussed in my paper. journals.sagepub.com/ > doi/full/10.1177/1461452916659830 > > > Climatic Change <https://link.springer.com/journal/10584> > > August 2017, Volume 143, Issue 3–4 > <https://link.springer.com/journal/10584/143/3/page/1>, pp 321–336 > The influence of learning about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on support > for mitigation policies > > - Authors > <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-017-2005-1#authors> > - Authors and affiliations > > <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-017-2005-1#authorsandaffiliations> > > > - Victoria Campbell-ArvaiEmail author <[email protected]> > - P. Sol Hart > - Kaitlin T. Raimi > - Kimberly S. Wolske > > > - > - > <[email protected]> > - > - > - > - > - > - > - > > > 1. 1. > 2. 2. > 3. 3. > 4. 4. > 5. 5. > > Article > First Online: 28 July 2017 > <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-017-2005-1#article-dates-history> > > - 44Shares > > <http://www.altmetric.com/details.php?citation_id=22932693&domain=link.springer.com> > > - 201Downloads > > Abstract > > A wide range of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies has been proposed > to address climate change. As most CDR strategies are unfamiliar to the > public, it is unknown how increased media and policy attention on CDR might > affect public sentiment about climate change. On the one hand, CDR poses a > potential moral hazard: if people perceive that CDR solves climate change, > they may be less likely to support efforts to reduce carbon emissions. On > the other hand, the need for CDR may increase the perceived severity of > climate change and, thus, increase support for other types of mitigation. > Using an online survey of US adults (*N* = 984), we tested these > competing hypotheses by exposing participants to information about > different forms of CDR. We find that learning about certain CDR strategies > indirectly reduces support for mitigation policies by reducing the > perceived threat of climate change. This was found to be true for > participants who read about CDR in general (without mention of specific > strategies), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or direct air > capture. Furthermore, this risk compensation pattern was more pronounced > among political conservatives than liberals—although in some cases, was > partially offset by positive direct effects. Learning about reforestation, > by contrast, had no indirect effects on mitigation support through > perceived threat but was found to directly increase support among > conservatives. The results suggest caution is warranted when promoting > technological fixes to climate change, like CDR, as some forms may further > dampen support for climate change action among the unengaged. > Electronic supplementary material > > The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2005-1 > <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2005-1>) contains supplementary > material, which is available to authorized users. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the non-disclosure agreement between the parties. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
