h3.How People View Geoengineering

Results of a global survey of public opinion on geoengineering as described by Chad Baum in our forum.
https://projectsavetheworld.substack.com/p/about-global-views-on-geoengineering

What do most people think of geoengineering?

It’s an important question but, until recently, nobody could answer it with confidence. Too little public opinion research had been done and about 65
percent of all surveys had been done in only three countries – UK, Germany, and US.
But now a massive global study has been funded by the European Research Council: the “Genie project” (Geoengineering and Negative Emissions in Europe).
Quivering with curiosity, I held a video conversation in August with one of the scholars who conducted that research. Here I’ll summarize most of what he told me.

He is Chad Baum, and he talked by Zoom from his home in Aarhus, Denmark, partly with his toddler son on his lap. The two-year-old understands German and Danish,
but I didn’t get very far with him in English, though his dad was a fountain of information.

Chad Baum is an assistant professor at Aarhus University who conducted the survey of over 30,000 participants. His research colleagues Benjamin Sovacool,
Livia Fritz and Sean Low also held focus groups as part of the study, which questioned 1,000 persons from each of 30 countries, including Chile, Kenya, India,
China and Singapore. Chad pointed out that, unfortunately, only about 20 percent of the respondents had been familiar with any climate repair technologies at the
outset of the study, so they were given concise descriptions of each system to read before answering questions about their views. They were introduced to three
categories of technologies:
1. Ecosystem-based carbon removal (e.g., afforestation, soil sequestration).
2. Novel carbon dioxide removal (CDR) (e.g., direct air capture, enhanced rock weathering).
3. Solar geoengineering (e.g., stratospheric aerosol injection, marine cloud brightening).

THE ANSWERS

Their findings surprised Chad and the other researchers on his team.
It is widely supposed that the general public opposes – even fears – geoengineering methods of reducing or reversing climate change. But not so! The survey
showed the public to be somewhat favorable to all three forms of climate repair, even the least favored of the three, solar geoengineering, which garnered
lukewarm acceptance.

The research showed that every group in the survey preferred the ecosystem-based carbon dioxide removal technologies. (“Everybody loves trees,” he explained.)
But all groups basically accepted all three categories of geoengineering. One startling discovery was that, as Chad pointed out,
“those in the global south were more supportive of technology such as SRM (i.e. solar radiation management, as solar geoengineering is usually called) and
carbon removal, and it wasn’t a small difference, either. I’m now aware of four or five other studies smaller in scale than our own, that have allowed for a
comparison between global north and global south publics, and all of them find the same thing…

“People in the global south have already experienced more natural disasters, and they perceive and worry more about harm from climate change in the future.
But while their worry about climate change is high, there’s also a greater degree of hope about climate change. They tended more to believe that technology
would solve climate change.” Chad also reported several other surprising facts. For one thing, urban populations, particularly in the Global South, expressed
greater openness to technological solutions, possibly due to heightened exposure to climate impacts. Rural communities, meanwhile, exhibited cautious pragmatism;
their opinions varied according to how well a particular technology aligns with their local livelihood and ecosystem.

Age emerged as a decisive factor. Younger respondents globally were more supportive of solar geoengineering. “The younger an individual is,” he observes, “the
more likely they are to see these

Urban populations expressed greater openness to technological solutions… Rural communities exhibited cautious pragmatism

technologies as necessary.” Moreover, there’s even something important about simply belonging to a population where the median age is young.
Those whole populations tended to be more supportive of solar geoengineering.”
Indigenous views varied and were strongly influenced by whether the community and its elders had been adequately consulted in planning any experiments in
their area. Indigenous groups have strong feelings of sovereignty and want to be taken seriously in planning what can permitted on their territory.

THE “MORAL HAZARD”

The main findings of the GENIE study had been already been reported in other publications, but I had some additional concerns. I wanted to know whether the
survey sheds light on the “moral hazard” argument that is so often used by people who oppose geoengineering.
Such people argue that if climate repair works, it will give an excuse to people who don’t want to reduce the use of fossil fuels by letting them believe that
it won’t even be necessary to change their ways.

They will optimistically assume that geoengineering will solve the problem for them, so they won’t have to make any sacrifices.
This is the gist of the so-called ‘moral hazard’ argument. Many of those who believe that the argument is correct don’t want it to be known that technological
solutions are possible – for they assume that if others knew, they wouldn’t even try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Therefore, they suppose that especially the fossil fuel industry wants everyone to favor geoengineering so they will continue buying oil and gas products.
But is there any truth to the moral hazard argument?
Chad thinks not. He explained that his survey had asked the respondents whether they were concerned about several potential risks of geoengineering, such
as possible safety dangers and whether it would impose unequal risks and benefits onto rich and poor countries.
One of the risks on the questionnaire was whether the respondents thought geoengineering would reduce the motivation to reduce emissions. Their answer
indicates whether or not they believe the “moral hazard” argument.
Answer: Respondents in the Global South are more worried about all of those risks, including the moral hazard – but they support technological interventions anyway.
Chad concludes that the supporters of geoengineering are not naïve. They are very aware of the problems that it may pose, but they see the climate threat as
even more severe. He said, “They want to see these technologies further developed. They want to see governance develop, but they haven’t seen problems that are [bad] enough to cause
them not to be supportive, for the time being.” He mentioned a solar radiation management experiment that had been set up in Mexico but which the Mexican government blocked because the researchers hadn’t asked permission. Chad’s team quickly held a survey of Mexicans about the issue.

It turns out that the respondents were more supportive if the research were done in Mexico than in the United Kingdom. He said, “They wanted it to be done
on their local territory, while also being very supportive of having national level governance going on. So again, this idea of there needing to be a big
ban, we didn’t find that, but people wanted to have a say in what was going on and wanted to kind of explore this.”

But regarding the moral hazard argument: Is it true or not? If people favor geoengineering, do they actually stop worrying about the disastrous effects of
climate change and stop trying to reduce their carbon emissions as individuals?
Evidently not. Chad cited six or seven studies that other researchers had done by giving respondents information about solar radiation management. Were they
then less likely to buy carbon offsets or change their own behavior to reduce emissions?

No, on the contrary. Indeed, sometimes there were positive effects. If people are informed about solar geoengineering and then take climate change more
seriously, it actually has a positive effect on their wanting to mitigate or reduce emissions. Chad said,
“The way the logic runs is, if they’re informed about solar geoengineering, they then say, ‘I didn’t realize the problem is that bad,’ and then they take
climate change more seriously, so they do more to mitigate or reduce emissions.”

WHAT I BET ON NOW While

I was pleased to learn that the moral hazard argument is false, I was also a bit surprised, since most of my friends who do favor geoengineering actually
seem to change their own behavior lessinstead of more. I have to admit that I’m one of them.

I don’t believe the “moral hazard” argument, but I don’t try very hard to reduce my “carbon footprint.” For example, I don’t turn off the lights whenever
I leave a room and I never did ride a bicycle. I’m somewhat immoral, I admit, but not illogical.
Why? Because I don’t bet on a horse that’s bound to lose. Forty years

But emissions are not the only problem. There is also a separate source of global warming: the loss of clouds.

ago, the only goal worth pursuing was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – but not so today. It’s too late for that and it hasn’t worked anyway.
For forty years we’ve yelled, “Reduce emissions!” and yet the emissions have increased almost every year and are still increasing. The best that anyone can
claim is that the rate of increase has slowed. Holy cow! I’m not betting on that horse anymore. To Chad’s surprise, Iexclaimed, “It ain’t gonna happen! And
if it ain’t gonna happen, what else have we got?” (He didn’t answer.)

Okay, someday the emissions will stop. They have to. But it’s taking longer than anyone expected and, even if they stopped today, the problem would remain.
The emissions that have already been emitted would remain in the atmosphere, heating the planet, until something removed them. That “something” is
geoengineering. And that’s what we already do have, ready to try right now.
But, worse yet, emissions are not the only problem. There is also a separate source of global warming: the loss of clouds. White clouds reflect sunshine back
into space and cool the land and water. That reflectivity is called “albedo.” Only recently have the climate researchers recognized it as a major factor. For
decades, clouds have diminished. We have to put them back up there. It’s not hard to do. That too is ‘geoengineering’ and I support it: Let’s start trying it
immediately.

I don’t know whether Chad agrees or not. He’s a proper survey researcher, so he didn’t say. Thanks, Chad.