Contact us|Help|Site Map|Search

• Home
• About Us
• Funding
• Our Research
• Working with business

• Careers
• Publications
• Press
• Events

'Experiment Earth?' Public have their say on technologies to reduce global warming

9 September 2010

"It's not a solution, it's a sticking plaster" was the initial reaction from a member of the public in response to the idea of sending sulphate particles into the upper atmosphere to scatter the Sun's rays and prevent heat reaching the Earth.

This is just one of the possible geoengineering schemes being proposed as a last resort measure to combat climate change if mitigation efforts are not sufficient.

Over the past few months members of the public have been taking part in a public dialogue on geoengineering, to give their views on this new area of research. Participants debated not only what technologies might need to be researched in future but why they might be needed at all. The outcomes of the 'Experiment Earth?' dialogue workshops are published today.

Universities & Science Minister David Willetts said, "Climate change is one of the biggest threats we face. Geoengineering may have a role in helping us respond to this. We're committed to public engagement about science - it's vital we know what the public think about the research options on the table and ensure they have their say on where public money should be spent."

The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) wants to take public views into account when making decisions about geoengineering research, so, in association with the Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre, it commissioned a consortium led by Ipsos MORI to run 'Experiment Earth?'.

What the public said

Participants in the workshops (held in Birmingham, Cardiff and St Austell) looked at nine possible geoengineering technologies, covering both carbon dioxide reduction - which addresses the root cause of climate change by removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere - and solar radiation management, which attempts to offset the effects of increased greenhouse gas concentrations by reflecting a small amount of the Sun's energy back into space.

CO2 removal was seen by participants in each of the three locations as the least risky approach. The technologies that received the most support throughout the dialogue were those perceived as being the most 'natural', which participants felt would best complement actions already being undertaken to tackle climate change.

These 'natural' technologies included afforestation (planting trees and managing land use) and making biochar (where plant material is heated without oxygen, locking the carbon in a finely-grained charcoal for adding to soil). Air capture ('artificial trees' to remove CO2 directly from the air) also received considerable support.

The solutions that received the least support were mirrors in space (which would deflect some of the Sun's energy away from Earth to prevent warming), which was seen as being expensive and risky, white roofs (where surfaces are painted to make them more reflective and absorb less heat from sunlight) and liming the ocean (adding an alkali from limestone rock to make the water less acidic).

The exercise showed that most people who took part acknowledged that there is a need for research into understanding the effects of geoengineering, in case reducing greenhouse gas emissions alone is not effective enough to meet the climate challenge.

Project Manager Dr Faith Culshaw said, "The real value of this exercise was in capturing the range of public views and concerns on the subject of geoengineering. Whilst the results obtained were indicative rather than quantitative, we gained a better understanding of how people make their judgements when given scientific information in an informal interactive situation, with time to deliberate the issues in question."

Professor Charles Godfray, Chair of the project's steering committee, said, "Whilst the public acknowledged a need for continued research into understanding the effects of geoengineering, they had serious concerns about some of the technologies discussed. They also made it very clear that it is both ethically and practically important not to use the future possibility of geoengineering as an excuse to relax efforts to prevent climate change."

Key recommendations coming from the dialogue exercise highlight that public views and concerns should be recognised as an important part of the decision making processes, that the public dialogue should be ongoing, and that it should include people from the developing world and scientists from around the world.

They also emphasise that research funders and policy makers should ensure that geoengineering research and deployment are assessed in terms of controllability, reversibility and effectiveness in terms of costs and benefits, timeliness and potential for fair regulation.

NERC will consider the results of this dialogue and work with other funders and policy makers to take account of public views when taking decisions in this emerging area.

Further information

NERC Press Office
Natural Environment Research Council
Polaris House, North Star Avenue
Swindon, SN2 1EU
Tel: 01793 411561
Mob: 07917 557215

Notes

1. Experiment Earth? Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering has been published on the 'Experiment Earth?' page on NERC's website.

About geoengineering

2. Geoengineering is defined as the deliberate and large-scale manipulation of the Earth's climate system to reduce global warming. At present we do not know how feasible such geoengineering schemes might be, or how they might affect the environment, so it is important to do more research on this subject.

The nine technologies being discussed during the dialogue exercise were: afforestation; air capture; biochar; cloud whitening; sulphate particles; iron fertilisation; white roofs; liming the oceans; mirrors in space.

About the dialogue

3. The dialogue was commissioned by the Natural Environment Research Council in association with Sciencewise-ERC (supported by the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills), the Royal Society, and the Living With Environmental Change partnership. The aim was to identify and understand public views on geoengineering research and deployment, including its moral, ethical and societal implications. The dialogue was run by a consortium led by Ipsos MORI, with Dialogue by Design and the British Science Association.

4. To ensure the Ipsos MORI consortium obtained a good cross-section of the public, with a balanced mix of men and women of ages ranging from 18 to 72, and living in both city and rural locations, professional market-researchers were used to recruit a total of 85 people in Birmingham, Cardiff and St Austell, Cornwall. After the initial workshops (two in each location), a further dialogue event was held at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, with a focus group of participants from the three locations, to explore some of the technologies in more depth with senior NERC staff and others.

5. In conjunction with the workshops, the consortium also ran an online public consultation, held three open-access events in Birmingham, Cardiff and Oxford and sought opinion from a further two focus groups - teenagers aged between 16 and 18 years, and people who lived in areas at risk of flooding.

6. NERC is the UK's main agency for funding and managing world-class research, training and knowledge exchange in the environmental sciences. It coordinates some of the world's most exciting research projects, tackling major issues such as climate change, environmental influences on human health, the genetic make-up of life on earth, and much more. NERC receives around £400m a year from the government's science budget, which it uses to fund independent research and training in universities and its own research centres.

7. Living With Environmental Change (LWEC) represents an unprecedented partnership of organisations funding, undertaking and using environmental research, including the research councils, government departments, devolved administrations and delivery agencies. The ten-year programme will connect world-leading natural, engineering, economic, social, medical, cultural, arts, and humanities researchers with policy-makers, business, the public, and other key stakeholders.

8. The Royal Society is a fellowship of the world's most distinguished scientists, which promotes the advancement of science and its use for the benefit of humanity and the good of the planet. It has had a hand in some of the most innovative and life changing discoveries in scientific history. It supports the UK's brightest and best young scientists, engineers and technologists, influences science policy, debates scientific issues with the public and much more. Founded in 1660, the Society has three roles: as the UK academy of science promoting the natural and applied sciences, as a learned society, and as a funding agency.

9. The Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre for Public Dialogue in Science & Innovation (ERC) is funded by the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS). It aims to help policy makers commission and use public dialogue to inform policy decisions which involve science and technology. It aims to provide a comprehensive online resource of information, advice and guidance together with a wide range of support services aimed at policy makers and all the different stakeholders involved in science and technology policy-making, including the public.

Press release: 35/10

Search