Explore the vast range of titles available.

There is growing interest in bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) as a possible technology for removing CO 2 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 CO 2 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. It is not clear how the public views the acceptability of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Here the authors explored public perceptions of BECCS by situating the technology in three policy scenarios and found that the policy instrument used to incentivise BECCS significantly affects the degree of public support for the technology.

Despite high expectations about the role of carbon removal in meeting global climate targets, many of the proposed techniques remain nascent. This is especially so for techniques with potential for large-scale, permanent removal of CO 2 , such as direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) and ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE). In such a context, understanding public attitudes is crucial but challenging, since we do not have enough information about the sociotechnical configurations which might accompany such proposals over future timescales. Carbon removal at scale will not take place in a vacuum—it will co-evolve within political, social, economic, and legal structures which in turn will have a strong influence on public attitudes. This study used a nationally-representative survey ( n = 1978) in the UK to test the impact of alternative sociotechnical systems on public attitudes to DACCS and OAE. Participants were randomly assigned to one of five scenario conditions, representing different forms of governance logic (top–down vs bottom–up) and market logic (planned vs liberal economy), plus one with minimal sociotechnical information. We find that the scenario condition significantly impacted perceptions of OAE, with participants preferring its implementation within a bottom–up, planned economy scenario, and rejecting scenarios which most closely resembled the status quo. There were no significant differences between scenarios for DACCS, suggesting that the technology may be more flexible across alternative sociotechnical arrangements. OAE arouses more negative emotions, particularly worry about impacts on ocean ecosystems, whereas DACCS arouses more hope. We found that climate worry is associated with stronger emotions—both positive and negative—toward both techniques, thus carbon dioxide removal (CDR) could be polarising for the most climate-worried, likely due to tensions between climate urgency and concerns about deterring emissions reductions. The most important criteria for future CDR deployment were deemed to be biodiversity, durability, and cost, with a strong discourse around the current cost-of-living crisis.

Letter to the Editor

Biological carbon removal has been proposed as a ‘win-win’ for climate, sustainability and public opinion, but research on public perceptions is lacking explicit evidence on trade-offs between options. Here we explore perceptions using small group deliberation (n60) plus a nationally representative survey (n2027) in the UK’s four jurisdictions. We find a strong preference for carbon removal to play a substantial role in meeting national climate targets, stemming from persistent scepticism about emissions reductions and behaviour change. However, such support was tempered with caution about whether certain biological techniques - biochar, peatland restoration, and perennial biomass crops - would be “worth it”. In particular, concerns were raised about life-cycle emissions, as well as land competition with urgent housing needs, and scientific uncertainty around novel techniques such as biochar. While we find that responses to carbon removal tend to shift the burden of responsibility for climate action away from individuals, we also identify region-specific discourses, highlighting the importance of local context in shaping public views. In the UK, there is a strong public preference for carbon dioxide removal in meeting national climate targets, but support is moderated by concerns about biochar, peatland restoration, and perennial biomass crops, according to an analysis that uses data from workshops and nationally-representative surveys.

Scientists and policymakers must acknowledge that carbon dioxide removal can be small in scale and still be relevant for climate policy, that it will primarily emerge ‘bottom up’, and that different methods have different governance needs.

Framing solutions to climate change as natural strongly influences their acceptability, but what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is selected, not self-evident. We suggest that the current, narrow formulation of natural climate solutions risks constraining what are thought of as desirable policy options.

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.

The idea of planting trees to sequester carbon is so popular that it seems to make people feel more negative towards other techniques, when presented with a range of options for carbon removal. Such a bias could hamper development of a broad and socially-robust portfolio of carbon removal options. The idea of planting trees to sequester carbon is so popular that it seems to make people feel more negative towards other techniques, when presented with a range of options for carbon removal. Such a bias could hamper development of a broad and socially-robust portfolio of carbon removal options.

Nation states need to incentivize negative emissions technologies if they are to take the decarbonization of whole energy systems seriously. This incentivization must account for public values and interests in relation to which technologies to incentivize, how they should be incentivized and how they should be governed once incentivized.

The publication of the IPCC Special Report on global warming of 1.5 oC paved the way for the rise of the political rhetoric of setting a fixed deadline for decisive actions on climate change. However, the dangers of such deadline rhetoric suggest the need for the IPCC to take responsibility for its report and openly challenge the credibility of such a deadline.