IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natcli/v9y2019i10d10.1038_s41558-019-0564-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Climate experts’ views on geoengineering depend on their beliefs about climate change impacts

Author

Listed:
  • Astrid Dannenberg

    (University of Kassel)

  • Sonja Zitzelsberger

    (University of Kassel)

Abstract

Damages due to climate change are expected to increase with global warming, which could be limited directly by solar geoengineering. Here we analyse the views of 723 negotiators and scientists who are involved in international climate policy-making and who will have a considerable influence on whether solar geoengineering will be used to counter climate change. We find that respondents who expect severe global climate change damages and who have little confidence in current mitigation efforts are more opposed to geoengineering than respondents who are less pessimistic about global damages and mitigation efforts. However, we also find that respondents are more supportive of geoengineering when they expect severe climate change damages in their home country than when they have more optimistic expectations for the home country. Thus, when respondents are more personally affected, their views are closer to what rational cost–benefit analyses predict.

Suggested Citation

  • Astrid Dannenberg & Sonja Zitzelsberger, 2019. "Climate experts’ views on geoengineering depend on their beliefs about climate change impacts," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(10), pages 769-775, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:natcli:v:9:y:2019:i:10:d:10.1038_s41558-019-0564-z
    DOI: 10.1038/s41558-019-0564-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0564-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41558-019-0564-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jesse L. Reynolds, 2021. "Is solar geoengineering ungovernable? A critical assessment of governance challenges identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), March.
    2. Toby Bolsen & Risa Palm & Russell E. Luke, 2023. "Public response to solar geoengineering: how media frames about stratospheric aerosol injection affect opinions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(8), pages 1-21, August.
    3. Martin Kesternich & Andreas Löschel & Andreas Ziegler, 2021. "Negotiating weights for burden sharing rules in international climate negotiations: an empirical analysis," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(2), pages 309-331, April.
    4. Binbin Yang & Sang-Do Park, 2023. "Who Drives Carbon Neutrality in China? Text Mining and Network Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-24, March.
    5. Frikk Nesje & Robert C. Schmidt & Moritz A. Drupp & Robert Christian Schmidt, 2024. "Designing Carbon Pricing Policies Across the Globe," CESifo Working Paper Series 11424, CESifo.
    6. Jean S. Renouf, 2021. "Making sense of climate change—the lived experience of experts," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 1-18, January.
    7. Marcel Lumkowsky & Emily K. Carlton & David G. Victor & Astrid Dannenberg, 2023. "Determining the willingness to link climate and trade policy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(10), pages 1-24, October.
    8. Chad M. Baum & Livia Fritz & Sean Low & Benjamin K. Sovacool, 2024. "Public perceptions and support of climate intervention technologies across the Global North and Global South," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    9. Zhen Dai & Elizabeth T. Burns & Peter J. Irvine & Dustin H. Tingley & Jianhua Xu & David W. Keith, 2021. "Elicitation of US and Chinese expert judgments show consistent views on solar geoengineering," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    10. Christine Merk & Gernot Wagner, 2024. "Presenting balanced geoengineering information has little effect on mitigation engagement," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(1), pages 1-17, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natcli:v:9:y:2019:i:10:d:10.1038_s41558-019-0564-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.