• Energy Research

This article discusses and illuminates the synergies and jeopardies or tradeoffs that exist between the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and net-zero or future climate protection options such as greenhouse gas removal (GGR) technologies and solar radiation management (SRM) deployment approaches, respectively. Through a large-scale expert-interview exercise (N = 125), the study finds firstly that numerous synergies and tradeoffs exist between GGR, SRM, and the SDGs. More specifically, we reveal that GGR deployment could enhance the attainment of 16 of the 17 SDGs, but this comes with possible tradeoffs with 12 of the SDGs. SRM deployment could not only enhance the attainment of 16 of the 17 SDGs, but also create possible tradeoffs with (a different) 12 SDGs. The findings further support the understanding of the complexity of SRM and GGR proposals and help policymakers and industrial pioneers understand, navigate, and benchmark between geoengineering approaches using sustainable development goals.

AbstractCarbon removal is emerging as a pillar of governmental and industry commitments toward achieving Net Zero targets. Drawing from 44 focus groups in 22 countries, we map technical and societal issues that a representative sample of publics raise on five major types of carbon removal (forests, soils, direct air capture, enhanced weathering, and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage), and how these translate to preferences for governance actors, mechanisms, and rationales. We assess gaps and overlaps between a global range of public perceptions and how carbon removal is currently emerging in assessment, innovation, and decision-making. In conclusion, we outline key societal expectations for informing assessment and policy: prioritize public engagement as more than acceptance research; scrutiny and regulation of industry beyond incentivizing innovation; systemic coordination across sectors, levels, and borders; and prioritize underlying causes of climate change and interrelated governance issues.

AbstractClimate intervention technologies such as carbon dioxide removal and solar geoengineering are becoming more actively considered as solutions to global warming. The demographic aspects of the public serve as a core determinant of social vulnerability and the ability for people to cope with, or fail to cope with, exposure to heat waves, air pollution, or disruptions in access to modern energy services. This study examines public preferences for 10 different climate interventions utilizing an original, large-scale, cross-country set of nationally representative surveys in 30 countries. It focuses intently on the demographic dimensions of gender, youth and age, poverty, and income as well as intersections and interactions between these categories. We find that support for the more engineered forms of carbon removal decreases with age. Gender has little effect overall. Those in poverty and the Global South are nearly universally more supportive of climate interventions of various types.

Solar geoengineering (also known as solar radiation modification) is garnering more attention (and controversy) among media and policymakers in response to the impacts of climate change. Such debates have become more prominent following the first-ever field trials of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) in 2022. How the lay public perceives solar geoengineering remains unclear, however. We use nationally representative samples (N = 3013) in Mexico, United States, and United Kingdom to examine public perceptions of risks and benefits, support, and policy preferences. We also employ an information-framing design that presented individuals with media-style reports on SAI activities differing along three dimensions: location, actor, and scale and purpose. Support for SAI is found to be generally higher in Mexico; perceptions of risks and benefits do not differ between countries. Information about SAI activities has a limited effect. There is evidence that activities conducted by universities receive more support than those by start-up companies.

PurposeThis paper aims to explore three operations and supply chain management (OSCM) approaches for meeting the 2 °C targets to counteract climate change: adaptation (adjusting to climatic impacts); mitigation (innovating towards low-carbon practices); and carbon-removing negative emissions technologies (NETs). We suggest that adaptation nor mitigation may be enough to meet the current climate targets, thus calling for NETs, resulting in the following question: How can operations and supply chains be reconceptualized for NETs?Design/methodology/approachWe draw on the sustainable supply chain and transitions discourses along with interview data involving 125 experts gathered from a broad research project focused on geoengineering and NETs. We analyze three case studies of emerging NETs (biochar, direct air carbon capture and storage and ocean alkalinity enhancement), leading to propositions on the link between OSCM and NETs.FindingsAlthough some NETs are promising, there remains considerable variance and uncertainty over supply chain configurations, efficacy, social acceptability and potential risks of unintended detrimental consequences. We introduce the concept of transformative OSCM, which encompasses policy interventions to foster the emergence of new technologies in industry sectors driven by social mandates but lack clear commercial incentives.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is among the first that studies NETs from an OSCM perspective. It suggests a pathway toward new industry structures and policy support to effectively tackle climate change through carbon removal.

Novel technologies for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and proposals around solar radiation modification, known also as solar geoengineering, display key features of complex problems. These climate intervention technologies are characterized by high uncertainties, value disputes, high stakes and urgency. Such features create wicked conundrums in climate governance. Addressing questions around more effective governance of these technologies necessitates reflections on how different kinds of expertise, normative judgments and democratic decision-making (should) interact. Based on a survey (N = 22,222) and 44 focus groups (N = 323) in 22 countries, we show (i) who publics see as an expert in the field of climate intervention technologies, (ii) what roles they envision for experts in governing climate intervention technologies and (iii) how trust and distrust in scientists unfolds in the context of these novel, partly controversial, technologies. Our findings contribute to the debate regarding public preferences for experts and expertise in decision-making on complex and potentially contested issues. They offer insights for experts in the field on how to communicate and engage in public debate and policymaking as well as on which drivers of public dis-/trust to attend.

AbstractThe need for public engagement is increasingly evident as discussions intensify around emerging methods for carbon dioxide removal and controversial proposals around solar geoengineering. Based on 44 focus groups in 22 countries across the Global North and Global South (N = 323 participants), this article traces public preferences for a variety of bottom-up and top-down engagement practices ranging from information recipient to broad decision authority. Here, we show that engagement practices need to be responsive to local political cultures and socio-technical environments, while attending to the global dimensions and interconnectedness of the issues at stake. Establishing public engagement as a cornerstone of inclusive and sustainable governance of climate-intervention technologies requires (i) recognizing the diversity of forms and intensities of engaging, (ii) considering national contexts and modes of engagement, (iii) tailoring to technological idiosyncrasies, (iv) adopting power-sensitive practices, (v) accounting for publics’ prior experience, (vi) establishing trust and procedural legitimacy and (vii) engaging with tensions and value disagreements.