Public perceptions of climate tipping points.

Coverage of climate tipping points has rapidly increased over the past 20 years. Despite this upsurge, there has been precious little research into how the public perceives these abrupt and/or irreversible large-scale risks. This article provides a nationally representative view on public perceptions of climate tipping points and possible societal responses to them (n = 1773). Developing a mixed-methods survey with cultural cognition theory, it shows that awareness among the British public is low. The public is doubtful about the future effectiveness of humanity's response to climate change in general, and significantly more doubtful about its response to tipping points specifically. Significantly more people with an egalitarian worldview judge tipping points likely to be crossed and to be a significant threat to humanity. All possible societal responses received strong support. The article ends by considering the prospects for 'cultural tipping elements' to tip support for climate policies across divergent cultural worldviews.

Perceptions of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in different policy scenarios.

There is growing interest in bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) as a possible technology for removing CO2 from the atmosphere. In the first study of its kind, we investigate whether and how different forms of incentivisation impact on public perceptions of this technology. We develop a new experimental method to triangulate perceptions of BECCS in different policy scenarios through quantitative measurement and qualitative elicitation. Here we show that the type of policy instrument used to incentivise BECCS significantly affects perceptions of the technology itself. While we find approval of coercive and persuasion-based policy scenarios for incentivisation, supportive instruments proved polarising. Payments based on the amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere were approved, but guarantees of higher prices for producers selling energy derived from BECCS were strongly opposed. We conclude that public support for BECCS is inextricably linked to attitudes towards the policies through which it is incentivised.

Crafting a public for geoengineering.

In a short period of time, climate 'geoengineering' has been added to the list of technoscientific issues subject to deliberative public engagement. Here, we analyse this rapid trajectory of publicization and explore the particular manner in which the possibility of intentionally altering the Earth's climate system to curb global warming has been incorporated into the field of 'public engagement with science'. We describe the initial framing of geoengineering as a singular object of debate and subsequent attempts to 'unframe' the issue by placing it within broader discursive fields. The tension implicit in these processes of structured debate - how to turn geoengineering into a workable object of deliberation without implying a commitment to its reality as a policy option - raises significant questions about the role of 'public engagement with science' scholars and methods in facilitating public debate on speculative technological futures.

A Sociotechnical Framework for Governing Climate Engineering.

Proposed ways of governing climate engineering have most often been supported by narrowly framed and unreflexive appraisals and processes. This article explores the governance implications of a Deliberative Mapping project that, unlike other governance principles, have emerged from an extensive process of reflection and reflexivity. In turn, the project has made significant advances in addressing the current deficit of responsibly defined criteria for shaping governance propositions. Three such propositions argue that (1) reflexive foresight of the imagined futures in which climate engineering proposals might reside is required; (2) the performance and acceptance of climate engineering proposals should be decided in terms of robustness, not optimality; and (3) climate engineering proposals should be satisfactorily opened up before they can be considered legitimate objects of governance. Taken together, these propositions offer a sociotechnical framework not simply for governing climate engineering but for governing responses to climate change at large.

Deliberative Mapping of options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists 'open up' appraisal of geoengineering.

Appraisals of deliberate, large-scale interventions in the earth's climate system, known collectively as 'geoengineering', have largely taken the form of narrowly framed and exclusive expert analyses that prematurely 'close down' upon particular proposals. Here, we present the findings from the first 'upstream' appraisal of geoengineering to deliberately 'open up' to a broader diversity of framings, knowledges and future pathways. We report on the citizen strand of an innovative analytic-deliberative participatory appraisal process called Deliberative Mapping. A select but diverse group of sociodemographically representative citizens from Norfolk (United Kingdom) were engaged in a deliberative multi-criteria appraisal of geoengineering proposals relative to other options for tackling climate change, in parallel to symmetrical appraisals by diverse experts and stakeholders. Despite seeking to map divergent perspectives, a remarkably consistent view of option performance emerged across both the citizens' and the specialists' deliberations, where geoengineering proposals were outperformed by mitigation alternatives.