Royal Society - David Keith

• activities (and/or substances) which are localised
(intensive), or are widely distributed or dispersed
(extensive);
• effects which are primarily local/regional, or which are
of global extent;
• ‘big science’ and centralised control, or small-scale
activity and local control;
• processes which are perceived as familiar, or novel and
unfamiliar (see also Box 4.4).
Some geoengineering options (such as reflectors in space)
have provoked public concern about potential militarisation
(Submission: Robock). To some extent, these concerns
have already been addressed in international law through
the 1977 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or
Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification
Techniques (ENMOD), UNCLOS, and the 1967 OST.
Other concerns have been expressed about the desirability
of commercial involvement in the development and
promotion of geoengineering. There are already a number
Box 4.4 Geoengineering and public engagement
A preliminary investigation of public perceptions and attitudes towards geoengineering technologies was undertaken
as part of this study. Four public focus groups were convened by British Market Research Bureau (BMRB) to discuss
attitudes to climate change, climate technologies, climate politics and the possibilities of geoengineering. The groups
were broadly stratified by environmental beliefs and behaviours, ranging from ‘positive greens’, holding the most
pro-environmental attitudes and beliefs, to ‘honestly disengaged’, people who are dubious about the environmental
threat from climate change and less likely to see a link to their own behaviour.
The groups discussed what they thought caused climate change, how it had changed their behaviours, if at all, and
who they felt was responsible for dealing with it. Several geoengineering technologies were then introduced:
stratospheric aerosols, ocean iron fertilisation and CO 2 capture from air. The groups discussed the different
technologies and possible benefits, risks and uncertainties of geoengineering.
Even this very limited and preliminary exercise in public engagement demonstrated a wide range of opinion on the
acceptability or otherwise of deliberate intervention in the climate system. Perception of geoengineering techniques
was generally negative, but multi-faceted and method-specific. Some people perceive ethical objections to
geoengineering in principle; others do not.
Aspects which are especially likely to underpin perceptions include:
• transparency of actions, motivations and purpose;
• lack of vested commercial and other interests driving research or deployment;
• demonstrable concern and responsibility for environmental impacts.
There may be a big difference in public attitudes to engineered CDR methods compared with those to SRM and
ecosystem-based CDR methods, reflecting their different technical attributes and the ethical issues that they raise.
This range of public opinion needs to be further explored, so that policy makers can decide whether and in what way
these opinions should inform their decisions.
The focus groups provided some tentative evidence that, rather than presenting a ‘moral hazard’ issue, the prospect of
geoengineering could galvanise people to act, and demand action, on greenhouse gas emission reductions. Although
participants were generally cautious, or even hostile, towards geoengineering proposals, several agreed that they would
actually be more motivated to undertake mitigation actions themselves (such as reducing energy consumption) if they
saw government and industry investing in geoengineering research or deployment. It was noteworthy that this reaction
was most pronounced in the some of the more ‘climate-sceptical’ participants. There was also a general concern that
geoengineering was not the right focus for action, and that low carbon technologies should be developed rather than
climate intervention methods.
In addition to the focus groups, BMRB conducted some public polling on attitudes to geoengineering. A nationally
representative sample of 1,000 adults aged 16+ across Great Britain took part in a short telephone survey. It would be
wrong to place too much emphasis on what was a preliminary polling exercise but the results showed mixed support
for ocean fertilisation, with 39% for, and 34% against, considering it to address climate change. There was a more
negative perception of stratospheric aerosols, with 47% of respondents disagreeing that this should be considered for
use, compared to 22% in favour.
These results indicate that further and more thorough investigations of public attitudes, concerns and uncertainties over
geoengineering should be carried out in parallel with technological R&D, and accompanied by appropriate educational
and knowledge exchange activities, to enable better informed debate and policy making.
The Royal Society
Geoengineering the Climate I September 2009 I 43