Public perception and acceptance of negative emission technologies \u2013 framing effects in Switzerland

Ariane Wenger,Irina Dallo,Michael Stauffacher

doi:10.1007/s10584-021-03150-9

Abstract

Limiting global warming to 1.5 °C requires negative emission technologies (NETs), which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and permanently store it to offset unavoidable emissions. Successful large-scale deployment of NETs depends not only on technical, biophysical, ecological, and economic factors, but also on public perception and acceptance. However, previous studies on this topic have been scarce. In 2019, Switzerland adopted a net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 target, which will require the use of NETs. To examine the current Swiss public perception and acceptance of five different NETs, we conducted an online survey with Swiss citizens (N = 693). By using a between-subjects design, we investigated differences in public opinion, perception, and acceptance across three of the most used frames in the scientific literature — technological fix, moral hazard, and climate emergency. Results showed that the public perception and acceptance of NETs does not differ between the frames. The technological fix frame best reflected participants’ opinion, whereas participants perceived the moral hazard frame the least credible and the climate emergency frame the most unclear. Moreover, our findings confirm the public’s unfamiliarity with NETs. We found no strong opposition, as participants indicated a moderate acceptance and a neutral evaluation of all five NETs, with afforestation standing out as the most accepted and positively evaluated NET. We conclude that, in the future, the public debate on NETs should be intensified, and the public perception should be monitored regularly to inform the development of NETs.

Highlights

Reaching net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by mid-century and limiting global warming to 1.5 °C will not be possible without the deployment of negative emission technologies (NETs) (IPCC 2018)
We found that participants who read an explanation of afforestation perceived NETs in general more positively than participants who read an explanation of direct air capture and carbon storage (DACCS)
While the USA and UK public tend to perceive DACCS negatively and BECCS neutrally (Cox et al 2020), we found that the Swiss public was more likely to perceive BECCS and DACCS positively

Summary

Introduction

Reaching net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by mid-century and limiting global warming to 1.5 °C will not be possible without the deployment of negative emission technologies (NETs) (IPCC 2018). NETs aim to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and store it permanently (IPCC 2018; Tanzer and Ramírez 2019; Tavoni and Socolow 2013). The process of removing and storing CO2 should not emit more emissions than can be removed to generate negative emissions (Tanzer and Ramírez 2019), which can help balance out unavoidable emissions (Beuttler et al 2019). NETs include a range of different measures that vary in terms of their removal processes and storage sites (Meadowcroft 2013). NETs, such as afforestation, remove CO2 out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis, whereas direct air capture and carbon storage (DACCS) removes CO2 directly from the air using a chemical sorbent (Tavoni and Socolow 2013). The removed CO2 is stored either biologically (e.g. soil carbon sequestration [SCS] and biochar) or in deep geological formations (e.g. bioenergy with carbon capture and storage [BECCS]) (Meadowcroft 2013; Tavoni and Socolow 2013)

Objectives

Methods

Discussion

Conclusion