"Abstract details
Public perceptions of climate engineering and field test proposals in Japan
M. Sugiyama (1) ; S. Asayama (2) ; A. Ishii (3)
(1) The University of Tokyo, Policy Alternatives Research Institute, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan; (2) National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan, Tsukuba, Japan; (3) Tohoku University, Center for northeast asian studies, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan
Abstract content
There is a growing call for research on climate engineering, the deliberate intervention in the Earth’s climate, particularly stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), one of the methods of so-called solar radiation management (SRM), given the presumed inadequacy of global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and a possibility of “climate emergency”. Such a call for research on SAI includes proposals of conducting small-scale outdoor experiments or field tests in the natural environment with controlled emissions of aerosols.
However, there are strong disagreements and controversies among scientists on whether and how such field tests should proceed, and importantly such debate is mainly based not on technical but social, political and ethical concerns. Advocates claim the urgent need for field tests due to concerns over “climate emergency” while critics worry about “moral hazard” caused by field tests and argue that once research was initiated, SAI would fall down a “slippery slope,” eventually leading to its deployment. These concerns are relevant to broader public deliberation, and should not be confined only to debate among experts.
In this poster, we report the results of a recent online survey with Japanese citizens (N = 3000), focusing mainly on SAI field tests. Our survey design was intended to elucidate the key social, political and ethical concerns of the public regarding SAI. The respondents read a short description of SAI and answered their opinions.
The survey results show a high rate of the “unsure” or “don’t know” (DK) responses ― about one-third of the respondents chose DK response to the questions regarding attitudes toward SAI. At least three reasons can be considered as sources of DK response: first, lack of knowledge and awareness of SAI, as nearly two-thirds answered “neither heard of nor know at all SAI”; second, little understanding of the provided information of SAI, since about two-fifths of the respondents answered “cannot understand so much” or “cannot understand at all”; and third, the omission of middle scale option such as “neither agree nor disagree” in our survey instrument, since it might have caused those who have ambivalent or ambiguous views on SAI to be difficult to answer, resulting in a DK response. Thus, our survey results can be deemed to show the public’s undecided opinions on SAI.
Nevertheless, the respondents demonstrated discernible attitudes toward SAI in some respects. First of all, a great majority of the the respondents clearly favor mitigation to SAI, and think that considering SAI before pursuing all efforts to reduce CO2 emissions is undesirable. In addition, the respondents exhibited (conditional) support of SAI research, but differentiated different modes of research. They demonstrated preference of indoor research activities such as computer simulations and lab work over outdoor field tests. The support for the deployment was limited, which is consistent with the findings of previous surveys. The respondents also showed a relatively serious concern over the risk of unpredictable side-effects of SAI and political consequences of research, i.e. the possibility of “slippery slope”, although a majority of them thought that the prospect of “moral hazard” is unlikely. Regarding the governance issues on field tests, the respondents strongly favor the public consultation before field tests, the open disclosure of the results including negative information, and the international regulation of field tests instead of scientists’ self-regulation. The respondents seem to endorse the importance and significance of ‘Oxford Principles’ of climate engineering research governance.
In our survey we controlled the information of SAI and split the sample into one with and without the “climate emergency” frame. Previous research suggests that framing of information provided to the respondents (especially, emergency framing) may influence, and therefore bias the public perception of SAI, though the results of our survey did not yield such framing effects on respondents’ attitudes toward SAI with any statistical significance. We thus have reported all the results, collapsing the two groups into one.
We believe our survey results can bring important and non-Western perspectives into the wider public debate on climate engineering."
http://www.commonfuture-paris2015.o...tm?Zoom=bca704b28724bff6a5fb3eb8db55392eFrom the website:
Our Common Future Under Climate Change
International Scientific Conference
7-10 JULY 2015 Paris, France
