But They Told Us It Was Safe! Carbon Dioxide Removal, Fracking, and Ripple Effects in Risk Perceptions.

Reaching net-zero for global greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 will require a portfolio of new technologies and approaches, potentially requiring direct removal and sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide using negative emissions technologies (NETs). Since energy and climate systems are fundamentally interconnected it is important that we understand the impacts of policy decisions and their associated controversies in other related technologies and sectors. Using a secondary analysis of data from a series of deliberative workshops conducted with lay publics in the United Kingdom, we suggest that perceptions of CO2 removal technologies were negatively impacted by risk perceptions and recent policy decisions surrounding shale gas and fracking. Using the social amplification of risk framework, we argue that heightened risk perceptions have extended via "ripple effects" across these technologies. Participants' attitudes were underpinned by deeper misgivings regarding the actions and motives of experts and policymakers; a pervasive discourse of "but they told us it was safe" regarding fracking negatively affected people's trust in assurances of the safety and efficacy of CO2 removal. This has the potential to undermine attempts to build societal agreement around future deployment of CO2 removal technologies.

Perceptions of enhanced weathering as a biological negative emissions option.

This paper addresses the social acceptability of enhanced weathering, a technology that would involve spreading silicate particles over terrestrial surfaces in order to boost the biological processes that currently sequester CO2 as part of the earth's natural carbon cycle. We present the first exploration of British attitudes towards enhanced weathering, using an online survey (n = 935) of a representative quota sample of the public. Baseline awareness of weathering was extremely low. Many respondents remained undecided or neutral about risks, although more people support than oppose weathering. Factors predicting support for weathering and its research included feelings about the technology and trust in scientists. Over half of the sample agrees that scientists should be able to conduct research into effectiveness and risks, but with conditions also placed upon how research is conducted, including the need for scientific independence, small-scale trials, strict monitoring, risk minimization and transparency of results. Public engagement is needed to explore in more detail why particular individuals feel either positive or negative about weathering, and why they believe particular conditions should be applied to research, as part of wider responsible research and innovation processes for biological and other types of negative emissions technologies.

Deliberating enhanced weathering: Public frames, iconic ecosystems and the governance of carbon removal at scale.

Meeting goals for 'net zero' emissions may require the removal of previously emitted carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. One proposal, enhanced rock weathering, aims to speed up the weathering processes of rocks by crushing them finely and spreading them on agricultural land. Public perceptions of enhanced rock weathering and its wider social and environmental implications will be a critical factor determining its potential; we use six 2-day deliberative workshops in England, Wales and Illinois to understand public views. Consideration of enhanced rock weathering deployment in tropical countries led participants to frame it from a social justice perspective, which had been much less prevalent when considering Western agricultural contexts, and generated assumptions of increased scale, which heightened concerns about detrimental social and environmental impacts. Risk perceptions relating to 'messing with nature' became amplified when participants considered enhanced rock weathering in relation to 'iconic' environments such as the oceans and rainforest.

Exploring cross-national public support for the use of enhanced weathering as a land-based carbon dioxide removal strategy.

This study explores how public attitudes across three countries influence support towards terrestrial enhanced weathering, whereby silicate minerals are applied to agricultural land to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. An online survey was administered in Australia (N = 1000), the UK (N = 1000), and the USA (N = 1026) where there are ongoing field trials of this technique. Findings are similar across all three countries with many participants unfamiliar with enhanced weathering and unsure about supporting the use of enhanced weathering. Results show that positive affect is the main predictor for support of this technique, along with perceived benefits and level of concern about climate change. Open-ended questions asking why respondents would or would not support the use of enhanced weathering elicit mainly affective concepts, with enhanced weathering seen by individual respondents as either something mainly positive or mainly negative, with others saying it sounds risky and/or would have impacts on the environment. The way in which enhanced weathering is communicated is likely to influence support of the use of this strategy so must be undertaken carefully. Overall, our findings show that it is imperative to continue to engage the public, thereby allowing their views to be incorporated as enhanced weathering technology develops over time.