This paper explores factors shaping perceptions of Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR) amongst a range of informed stakeholders, with a particular focus on their role in future social and political systems. We find considerable ambivalence regarding the role of climate targets and incumbent interests in relation to GGR. Our results suggest that GGR is symbolic of a fundamental debate – occurring not only between separate people, but sometimes within the minds of individuals themselves – over whether technological solutions represent a pragmatic or an unethical strategy. We present the idea of a ‘Monsanto effect’, whereby an entirely separate debate taps into deeper narratives and becomes so pervasive that it spills over into a new topic area. Our findings have signifi-cant implications for extant and emergent climate policy as they suggest that, in addition to the considerable practical challenges facing large-scale GGR deployment, there is a deeper psychological challenge in that actors are themselves conflicted about the fundamental desirability of GGR.
AdelmanS.2017. ‘Geoengineering: rights, risks and ethics’. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment8: 119–138. Crossref.
2.
AllisonG.1969. ‘Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crisis’. The American Political Science Review63: 689–718. Crossref.
3.
AndersonK. and PetersG.. 2016. ‘The trouble with negative emissions’. Science354: 182–183.
4.
AnshelmJ. and HanssonA.. 2014. ‘Battling Promethean dreams and Trojan horses: Revealing the critical discourses of geoengineering’. Energy Research & Social Science2: 135–144. Crossref.
5.
BellamyR., ChilversJ., VaughanN.E. and LentonT.M. 2013. “‘Opening up” geoen-gineering appraisal: Multi-criteria mapping of options for tackling climate change’. Global Environmental Change23: 926–937. Crossref.
6.
BellamyR. and LezaunJ.. 2017. ‘Crafting a public for geoengineering’. Public Understanding of Science26: 402–417. Crossref.
7.
BellamyR., LezaunJ. and PalmerJ.. 2017. ‘Public perceptions of geoengineering research governance: An experimental deliberative approach’. Global Environmental Change45: 194–202. Crossref.
8.
BlueG., 2015. ‘Representing global public concern: A critical analysis of the Danish participatory experiment on climate change’. Environmental Values24: 445–464. Crossref.
9.
BraunV. and ClarkeV.. 2006. ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’. Qualitative Research in Psychology3: 77–101. Crossref.
10.
CairnsR. and StirlingA.. 2014. “‘Maintaining planetary systems” or “Concentrating global power”? High stakes in contending framings of climate geoengineering’. Global Environmental Change28: 25–38. Crossref.
11.
Campbell-ArvaiV., HartP.S., RaimiK.T. and WolskeK.S.. 2017. ‘The influence of learning about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on support for mitigation policies’. Climatic Change143: 321–336. Crossref.
12.
CornerA., PidgeonN. and ParkhillK.. 2012. ‘Perceptions of geoengineering: Public attitudes, stakeholder perspectives, and the challenge of “upstream” engagement’. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change3: 451–466. Crossref.
13.
CoxE.M., PidgeonN., SpenceE. and ThomasG.. 2018. ‘Blurred lines: The ethics and policy of Greenhouse Gas Removal at scale’. Front. Environ. Sci.6(38): n.p. Crossref.
14.
CummingsC., LinS. and TrumpB.. 2017. ‘Public perceptions of climate geoengineering: A systematic review of the literature’. Climate Research73: 247–264. Crossref.
15.
DryzekJ.S.1997. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC). 2018. ‘Negative emissions technologies: What role in meeting Paris Agreement targets?’ EASAC Policy Report No. 35. Halle (Saale), Germany. Online at: Crossref.
17.
FuntowiczS. and RavetzJ.J., 1995. ‘Science for the post-normal age’. In WestraL. and LemonsJ. (eds), Perspectives on Ecological Integrity, pp. 146–161. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Crossref.
18.
GannonK.E. and HulmeM.. 2018. ‘Geoengineering at the “Edge of the World”: Exploring perceptions of ocean fertilisation through the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation’. Geo: Geography and Environment5(1): e00054. Crossref.
19.
Grove-WhiteR., MacnaghtenP. and WynneB.. 2000. ‘Wising up: The public and new technologies’. Working Paper. Lancaster University, UK: Centre for the Study of Environmental Change.
20.
HansenJ., SatoM., KharechaP., von SchuckmannK., BeerlingD.J., CaoJ., MarcottS., Masson-DelmotteV., PratherM.J., RohlingE.J., ShakunJ., SmithP., LacisA., RussellG. and RuedyR.. 2017. ‘Young people's burden: Requirement of negative CO2 emissions’. Earth System Dynamics8: 577–616. Crossref.
21.
HanssonA. and BryngelssonM.. 2009. ‘Expert opinions on carbon dioxide capture and storage – A framing of uncertainties and possibilities’. Energy Policy37: 2273–2282. Crossref.
22.
HeywardC.2013. ‘Situating and abandoning geoengineering: A typology of five responses to dangerous climate change’. PS: Political Science & Politics46: 23–27. Crossref.
HulmeM.2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref.
25.
HulmeM.2010. ‘Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge’. Global Environmental Change20: 558–564. Crossref.
26.
JamiesonD.2013. ‘Some whats, whys and worries of geoengineering’. Climatic Change121: 527–537. Crossref.
27.
KahanD.M., Jenkins-SmithH.C., TarantolaT., SilvaC.L. and BramanD.. 2012. ‘Geoengineering and the science communication environment: A cross-cultural experiment’. GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works. Paper 199. Crossref.
28.
KearyM.2016. ‘The new Prometheans: Technological optimism in climate change mitigation modelling’. Environmental Values25: 7–28. Crossref.
29.
LarkinA., KuriakoseJ., SharminaM. and AndersonK.. 2017. ‘What if negative emission technologies fail at scale? Implications of the Paris Agreement for big emitting nations’. Climate Policy18(6): 690–714. Crossref.
30.
Lawford-SmithH. and CurrieA.. 2017. ‘Accelerating the carbon cycle: The ethics of enhanced weathering’. Biology Letters13(4): 20160859. Crossref.
31.
LoweT.D. and LorenzoniI.. 2007. ‘Danger is all around: Eliciting expert perceptions for managing climate change through a mental models approach’. Global Environmental Change, Uncertainty and Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation17: 131–146. Crossref.
32.
MabonL. and ShackleyS.. 2015. ‘Meeting the targets or re-imagining society? An empirical study into the ethical landscape of carbon dioxide capture and storage in Scotland’. Environmental Values24: 465–482. Crossref.
33.
MacnaghtenP. and MyersG.. 2004. ‘Focus groups’. In SealeC., Giampietro GoboJ.G. and SilvermanD. (eds), Qualitative Research Practice, pp. 65–79. London: Sage Publications.
34.
MarkussonN. and HaszeldineS.. 2009. “‘Capture readiness” – lock-in problems for CCS governance’. Energy Procedia1: 4625–4632. Crossref.
35.
MarkussonN., Dahl GjefsenM., StephensJ.C. and TyfieldD.. 2017. ‘The political economy of technical fixes: The (mis)alignment of clean fossil and political regimes’. Energy Research and Social Science23: 1–10. Crossref.
36.
MarkussonN., McLarenD. and TyfieldD.. 2018. ‘Towards a cultural political economy of mitigation deterrence by Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR) techniques’. AMDEG Working Paper No. 1. Lancaster University, UK. Online at: http://wp.lancs.ac.uk/amdeg/files/2018/03/AMDEG-Working-Paper-1.pdf (accessed 24 June 2019). Crossref.
37.
McLarenD.2016. ‘Framing out justice: the post-politics of climate engineering discourses’. In PrestonC., (ed.) Climate Justice and Geoengineering: Ethics and Policy in the Atmospheric Anthropocene, pp. 139–160. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield. Crossref.
38.
MinxJ.C., LambW.F., CallaghanM.W., FussS., HilaireJ., CreutzigF., AmannT., BeringerT., de Oliveira GarciaW., HartmannJ., KhannaT., LenziD., LudererG., NemetG.F., RogeljJ., SmithP., VicenteJ.L., WilcoxJ., Zamora DominguezM.. 2018. ‘Negative emissions – Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis’. Environmental Research Letters13: 063001. Crossref.
39.
NerlichB. and JaspalR.. 2012. ‘Metaphors we die by? Geoengineering, metaphors, and the argument from catastrophe’. Metaphor and Symbol27: 131–147. Crossref.
40.
OlsonR.L.2011. ‘Geoengineering for Decision Makers’. Science and Technology Innovation Programme Report (November). Washington, D.C: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Online at: Crossref.
41.
PidgeonN., HarthornB.H., SatterfieldT. and DemskiC.. 2017. ‘Cross-national comparative communication and deliberation about the risk of nanotechnologies’. In JamiesonK., KahanD.M and ScheufeleD. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication, pp. 141–156. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crossref.
42.
PorterK.E. and HulmeM.. 2013. ‘The emergence of the geoengineering debate in the UK print media: A frame analysis’. The Geographical Journal179: 342–355. Crossref.
43.
PrestonC.J.2013. ‘Ethics and geoengineering: Reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal’. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change4: 23–37. Crossref.
44.
PrestonC.J.2015. ‘Framing an ethics of climate management for the Anthropocene’. Climatic Change130: 359–369. Crossref.
45.
RaiV.2013. ‘Expert elicitation methods for studying technological change under uncertainty’. Environmental Research Letters8: 041003. Crossref.
46.
SocietyRoyal. 2009. Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty. Working Group Project Report. London: Royal Society. Online at:. Crossref.
47.
TanseyO.2007. ‘Process tracing and elite interviewing: A case for non-probability sampling’. Political Science and Politics40: 765–772. Crossref.
48.
United Nations. 2015. ‘Adoption of the Paris Agreement’. Framework Convention on Climate Change (12 December). Report no.: FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1. Paris: United Nations. Online at: Crossref.
49.
VaughanN.E. and GoughC.. 2016. ‘Expert assessment concludes negative emissions scenarios may not deliver’. Environmental Research Letters11: 095003. Crossref.
