Thanks, Peter. Just to amplify, the IPCC states that to stay below 2degC
warming and esp below 1.5degC warming, both emissions reduction and CDR are
required, not either/or. So how about the concept that emissions reduction
presents a "moral hazard" to (required) CDR development?
In any case, if even thinking about CDR (let alone doing it) is perceived by
humans as a threat to emissions reduction (Campbell-Arvai et al., 2017), it's
game over. We have to do both. I seriously doubt that humans are truly
incapable of doing 2 things at once, but if they are we're toast (IPCC).
Greg
From: Peter Eisenberger <[email protected]>
To: Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>
Cc: geoengineering <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:40 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for
mitigation policies
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 August 2017 , Volume 143, Issue 3–4, pp 321–336
The influence of learning about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on support for
mitigation policies
- Authors
- Authors and affiliations
- Victoria Campbell-ArvaiEmail author
- P. Sol Hart
- Kaitlin T. Raimi
- Kimberly S. Wolske
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
Article
- First Online:
- 28 July 2017
- 44Shares
- 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 ) 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 geoengineering+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups. com.
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.
--
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.
