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.
BeerlingDJ (2017) Enhanced rock weathering: Biological climate change mitigation with co-benefits for food security?Biology Letters13: 20170149.
2.
BeerlingDJKantzasEPLomasMRWadePEufrasioRMRenforthP, et al. (2020) Potential for large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands. Nature583: 242–248.
BellamyRChilversJVaughanNE (2016) Deliberative mapping of options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists ‘open up’ appraisal of geoengineering. Public Understanding of Science25: 269–286.
5.
BellamyRLezaunJPalmerJ (2019) Perceptions of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in different policy scenarios. Nature Communications10: 743.
6.
BickerstaffKLorenzoniIJonesMPidgeonN (2010) Locating scientific citizenship: The institutional contexts and cultures of public engagement. Science, Technology, & Human Values35: 474–500.
BuckHJ (2016) Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: Social barriers and social implications. Climatic Change139: 155–167.
9.
BurgessJLimbMHarrisonCM (1988) Exploring environmental values through the medium of small groups. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space20: 309–326.
10.
CarlisleDPFeethamPMWrightMJTeagleDAH (2020) The public remain uninformed and wary of climate engineering. Climatic Change160: 303–322.
11.
CarrWAYungL (2018) Perceptions of climate engineering in the South Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, and North American Arctic. Climatic Change147: 119–132.
12.
CassNWalkerGDevine-WrightP (2010) Good neighbours, public relations and bribes: The politics and perceptions of community benefit provision in renewable energy development in the UK. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning12: 255–275.
13.
ChanKMASatterfieldTGoldsteinJ (2012) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics74: 8–18.
14.
ClarkeCEBugdenDHartPSStedmanRCJacquetJBEvensenDTN, et al. (2016) How geographic distance and political ideology interact to influence public perception of unconventional oil/natural gas development. Energy Policy97: 301–309.
15.
CornerAPidgeonN (2015) Like artificial trees? The effect of framing by natural analogy on public perceptions of geoengineering. Climatic Change130: 425–438.
16.
CornerAParkhillKPidgeonNVaughanNE (2013) Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Global Environmental Change23: 938–947.
17.
CoxEPidgeonNSpenceEThomasG (2018) Blurred lines: The ethics and policy of greenhouse gas removal at scale. Frontiers in Environmental Science6: 38.
18.
CoxESpenceEPidgeonN (2020a) Incumbency, trust and the Monsanto effect: Stakeholder discourses on greenhouse gas removal. Environmental Values29: 197–220.
19.
CoxESpenceEPidgeonN (2020b) Public perceptions of carbon dioxide removal in the United States and the United Kingdom. Nature Climate Change10: 744–749.
20.
DelinaLL (2021) Southeast Asian expert perceptions of solar radiation management techniques and carbon dioxide removal approaches: Caution, ambivalence, risk precaution, and research directions. Environmental Research Communications3: 125005.
21.
DevaneyLTorneyDBreretonPColemanM (2020) Ireland’s citizens’ assembly on climate change: Lessons for deliberative public engagement and communication. Environmental Communication14: 141–146.
22.
EdwardsDPLimFJamesRHPearceCRScholesJFreckletonRP, et al. (2017) Climate change mitigation: Potential benefits and pitfalls of enhanced rock weathering in tropical agriculture. Biology Letters13: 20160715.
23.
FirestoneJHoenBRandJElliottDHübnerGPohlJ (2018) Reconsidering barriers to wind power projects: Community engagement, developer transparency and place. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning20: 370–386.
24.
FischhoffBSlovicPLichtensteinSReadSCombsB (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences9: 127–152.
25.
FussSJonesCDKraxnerFPetersGPSmithPTavoniM, et al. (2016) Research priorities for negative emissions. Environmental Research Letters11: 115007.
26.
FussSLambWFCallaghanMWHilaireJCreutzigFAmannT, et al. (2018) Negative emissions – Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environmental Research Letters13: 063002.
27.
GoreSRenforthPPerkinsR (2019) The potential environmental response to increasing ocean alkalinity for negative emissions. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change24: 1191–1211.
28.
GoughCManderS (2019) Beyond social acceptability: Applying lessons from CCS social science to support deployment of BECCS. Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports6: 116–123.
29.
Grove-WhiteRMacnaghtenPMayerSWynneB (1997) Uncertain World: Genetically Modified Organisms, Food and Public Attitudes in Britain (Technical Report). Lancaster: Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University.
30.
JobinMSiegristM (2020) Support for the deployment of climate engineering: A comparison of ten different technologies. Risk Analysis40: 1058–1078.
31.
KantzasEPVal MartinMLomasMREufrasioRMRenforthPLewisAL, et al. (2022) Substantial carbon drawdown potential from enhanced rock weathering in the United Kingdom. Nature Geoscience15: 382–389.
32.
McLarenDParkhillKACornerAVaughanNEPidgeonNF (2016) Public conceptions of justice in climate engineering: Evidence from secondary analysis of public deliberation. Global Environmental Change41: 64–73.
33.
MacnaghtenP (2017) Focus groups as anticipatory methodology: A contribution from science and technology studies towards socially resilient governance. In: BarbourRMorganDL (eds) A New Era in Focus Group Research. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 343–363.
34.
MacnaghtenP (2020) The Making of Responsible Innovation, Elements in Earth System Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
MacnaghtenPMyersG (2004) Focus groups. In: SealeCGiampietro GoboJGSilvermanD (eds) Qualitative Research Practice. London: SAGE, pp. 65–79.
36.
MacnaghtenPDaviesSRKearnesM (2019) Understanding public responses to emerging technologies: A narrative approach. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning21: 504–518.
37.
MarshallNAdgerWNBenhamCBrownKICurnockMGurneyGG, et al. (2019) Reef grief: Investigating the relationship between place meanings and place change on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Sustainability Science14: 579–587.
38.
PidgeonN (2021) Engaging publics about environmental and technology risks: Frames, values and deliberation. Journal of Risk Research24: 28–46.
39.
PidgeonNDemskiCC (2012) From nuclear to renewable: Energy system transformation and public attitudes. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists68: 41–51.
40.
PidgeonNHarthornBHBryantKRogers-HaydenT (2009) Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotechnology4: 95–98.
41.
PidgeonNParkhillKCornerAVaughanN (2013) Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nature Climate Change3: 451–457.
42.
PidgeonNFSpenceE (2017) Perceptions of enhanced weathering as a biological negative emissions option. Biology Letters13: 20170024.
43.
RenforthP (2019) The negative emission potential of alkaline materials. Nature Communications10: 1401.
44.
Rogers-HaydenTPidgeonN (2007) Moving engagement ‘upstream’? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering’s inquiry. Public Understanding of Science16: 345–364.
45.
Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2018) Greenhouse Gas Removal. London: Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering.
46.
SiegristM (2021) Trust and risk perception: A critical review of the literature. Risk Analysis41: 480–490.
47.
SpenceAPidgeonN (2010) Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change20: 656–667.
48.
SpenceECoxEPidgeonN (2021) Exploring cross-national public support for the use of enhanced weathering as a land-based carbon dioxide removal strategy. Climatic Change165: 23.
49.
StreflerJAmannTBauerNKrieglerEHartmannJ (2018) Potential and costs of carbon dioxide removal by enhanced weathering of rocks. Environmental Research Letters13: 034010.
50.
SturgisPAllumN (2004) Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science13: 55–74.
51.
TropeYLibermanN (2010) Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review117: 440–463.
52.
WibeckVHanssonAAnshelmJAsayamaSDillingLFeethamPM, et al. (2017) Making sense of climate engineering: A focus group study of lay publics in four countries. Climatic Change145: 1–14.
53.
WilsdonJWillisR (2004) See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.
54.
WolskeKSRaimiKTCampbell-ArvaiVHartPS (2019) Public support for carbon dioxide removal strategies: The role of tampering with nature perceptions. Climatic Change152: 345–361.
55.
WrightMJTeagleDAHFeethamPM (2014) A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering. Nature Climate Change4: 106–110.
56.
WynneB (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science1: 281–304.
57.
ZakhourS (2020) The democratic legitimacy of public participation in planning: Contrasting optimistic, critical, and agnostic understandings. Planning Theory19: 349–370.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
