As regards the original post in this thread, I published a paper last year that found something rather different--albeit for SRM rather than CDR.
Using a survey experiment conducted on nationally representative sample of adults in the UK, I found that hearing a brief introduction to SRM induces no notable change in popular support for one major instrument for climate change mitigation (emissions taxation). For political Conservatives specifically, at least in a certain context, hearing about SRM actually *increased* their trust in climate scientists. So the evidence for a kind of public opinion trade-off as regards geoengineering/mitigation is mixed. It may be that there's no trade-off, or indeed that framing some kinds of geoengineering in certain ways can even increase support for emissions reductions. The paper is: "Geoengineering, moral hazard, and trust in climate science: evidence from a survey experiment in Britain", Climatic Change (2016) 139:477–489 DOI: 10.1007/s10584-016-1818-7 Best wishes, Malcolm Dr Malcolm Fairbrother Reader in Global Policy and Politics School of Geographical Sciences • Cabot Institute • Centre for Multilevel Modelling University of Bristol *As of mid-September 2017:* Professor of Sociology Umeå University Sweden On Wednesday, 23 August 2017 00:56:00 UTC+2, Peter Eisenberger wrote: > > Hi Greg , > Just for a moment of truth- free of moral hazards and climate change > politics > 1 Emissions reductions through capturing and storing CO2 cannot solve the > climate problem alone (and cost too much ) > 2 CDR can solve the problem alone -it is just more difficult without > emissions reductions > 3 While it is true that in the short term an emission reduction from a > plant already operating is equivalent to a CDR reduction of the same size > one can most effectively reduce emissions by switching to renewables > 4 Now the tricky point is that any technology has a practical limit of > how fast it can be implemented -so lets use a doubling of capacity every > two years - we know that experience curves result in cost reductions with > installed capacity > 5 So if one wanted to achieve the paris targets as fast as possible one > would invest in renewables and in CDR (DAC) and not spend a penny on > emissions reductions which in reducing the rate (the opprotunity cost of > emissions reductions)on would be slowing down the other two deployments > increasing the time it would take for both renewables and CDR to reach the > scale needed - because the last doublings ( when all the factories making > CDR and renewable will quickly make up for the increased emmissions from > existing plants -alternatively if one was to focus first on emissions > reductions and then on the other two that would be the longest time to > reach the capacities needed. > > This could easily be modeled but the key is the positive feedback created > by building plants which results in enhanced rate ( new installations per > year because of lower costs and earlier establishment of mass production > capability ) make the opportunity cost of investing in emmissions > reductions that will eventually end so large they are not worth doing . In > simpler terms one does not ususally invest in solutions that cannot solve > the problem if one has available approaches that do . > > I believe this logic is solid . The reason is has not been widely if at > all accepted is because clean coal got started in an era where we > mistakenly( Socolow and Pacala) thought that they together with renewables > and other things (eg conservation , efficiency etc ) could solve te > climate problem . Lots of vested interests exist(DOE in particular) that do > not want to admit that all their effort was in a dry hole so to speak. > > So my position is if we are serious about the climate threat we should all > focus on renewable energy and CDR and I believe of course (which I want > others to evaluate) that DAC followed by use of the carbon that stores it > is the CDR technology that can scale and offers a low cost solution > because the co2 makes money . The other approach I would support > investigating is enhancd weathering and of course fusion . > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> 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] <javascript:>> >> *To:* Andrew Lockley <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> *Cc:* geoengineering <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> *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] >> <javascript:>> 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 >> <http://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 <javascript:> >> - P. Sol Hart >> - Kaitlin T. Raimi >> - Kimberly S. Wolske >> >> Article >> First Online: 28 July 2017 >> <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-017-2005-1#article-dates-history> >> 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. >> >> -- 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.
