Project Details
Projekt Print View

Trade-offs between mitigation and climate engineering: an interdisciplinary approach (TOMACE)

Subject Area Economic Policy, Applied Economics
Practical Philosophy
Social Psychology, Industrial and Organisational Psychology
Term from 2016 to 2021
Project identifier Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) - Project number 311117145
 
Final Report Year 2021

Final Report Abstract

Even if societies decarbonized rapidly, it is unlikely that they will achieve the 1.5°C target without deploying carbon dioxide removal methods like bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) or afforestation. Such methods were included in the special report Global Warming of 1.5°C published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2018. This report also discusses solar radiation management, such as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) which might be used to change global temperatures. However, public debate about the acceptability of these methods remains absent. The project TOMACE, trade-offs between mitigation and climate engineering, researched German laypersons’ perceptions of BECCS and SAI from different perspectives. The project brought together researchers from three disciplines to assess public perceptions: (1) psychology using surveys, (2) economics using survey experiments and (3) ethics in a citizens’ jury. We compared the results of the disciplinary studies in a stylized setting that varied participants’ level of knowledge and deliberation – from perceptions that are based on little common knowledge about the methods that is representative of the current public discourse to perceptions that are based on extensive information and deliberation in a citizens’ jury that is representative of participative settings like climate assemblies. We found a high level of uncertainty among survey respondents as whether to accept the use of these methods; the uncertainty decreased when additional information from stakeholders was provided. When comparing survey participants to members of the citizens’ jury, we found lower levels of acceptance for SAI and similar levels for BECCS among jury members who had deliberated the methods intensively over the course of three weekends. Furthermore, participants wanted to be informed about the approaches and in our studies the threat of the deployment of SAI made them focus their attention on mitigation. Furthermore, they preferred options they perceived as more natural like biochar or afforestation over options they perceived as more technical or as a stronger intervention into nature like BECCS or SAI. We conclude that despite fears of distracting from the aim of reducing emissions, decision-makers should publicly discuss these methods to avoid entering climate change mitigation pathways that are based on incorrect assumptions about the political feasibility of CO2 removal.

Publications

 
 

Additional Information

Textvergrößerung und Kontrastanpassung