Abstract
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is an emerging option that has recently gained attention as a key component of net zero targets. CDR is now considered unavoidable to mitigate climate change and achieve emission reductions. Understanding social acceptability is crucial but currently lacking, particularly outside North America and Europe. Therefore, a thorough understanding of the public’s perceptions toward such methods in various geographies is necessary. As a step toward this direction, we investigated public perception across three Asian regions (Japan, n = 470; Taiwan, n = 473; China, n = 477) about the risks and benefits of CDR options through an online survey in 2021. The findings were similar in the three regions, with many participants unfamiliar with CDR options and unsure of understanding such technologies. Although risk perceptions had a similar pattern across the three regions, benefit perceptions had a different pattern. Furthermore, a lack of CDR knowledge decreased the respondents’ risk and benefit perceptions of CDR technology in a statistically significant manner. Overall, our findings suggest an urgent need to engage the wider public regarding CDR approaches and their potential contribution to meeting national and global climate goals.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets used and analyzed during the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Notes
Approaches that include biological processes such as terrestrial or marine vegetation.
CDR technologies that include non-biological processes such as chemical technologies, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), direct air capture (DAC), enhanced rock weathering (ERW) might have the potential for long-term sequestration of large quantities of CO2 (Cox et al.2020).
We categorized the educational level into two groups (up to high school, and college and above), and categorized the occupation into 3 groups (full-time, part-time, unemployed).
Please refer to the ESM for additional figures that summarize the statements of the risks and benefits in the three regions.
References
Anderson K, Peters G (2016) The trouble with negative emissions. Science 354:182–183. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah4567
Aziz A A, Ghani A N, Sugiyama M, del Barrio Alvarez D, Cox E, Spence E, Kamaludin M (2024) Public perception of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and its influencing factors: evidence from a survey in Malaysia. Sustain Sci
Bastin JF, Finegold Y, Garcia C, Mollicone D, Rezende M, Routh D, Zohner CM, Crowther TW (2019) The global tree restoration potential. Science 365:76–79. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0848
Baum CM, Fritz L, Low S, Sovacool BK (2024) Public perceptions and support of climate intervention technologies across the Global North and Global South. Nat Commun 15:2060. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-46341-5
Bawden T (2016) Paris climate deal “far too weak to prevent devastating global warming.” In: The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/cop21-paris-deal-far-too-weak-to-prevent-devastating-climate-change-academics-warn-a6803096.html. Accessed 25 Aug 2022
Bellamy R, Osaka S (2020) Unnatural climate solutions? Nat Clim Change 10:98–99. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0661-z
Bellamy R, Raimi K (2023) Communicating carbon removal. Front Clim 5:1205388. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2023.1205388
Bellamy R, Chilvers J, Vaughan NE, Lenton TM (2013) ‘Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal: multi-criteria map** of options for tackling climate change. Glob Environ Change 23:926–937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.011
Bellamy R, Lezaun J, Palmer J (2017) Public perceptions of geoengineering research governance: an experimental deliberative approach. Glob Environ Change 45:194–202
Bertram C, Merk C (2020) Public perceptions of ocean-based carbon dioxide removal: the nature-engineering divide? Front Clim 2:594194. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2020.594194
Braun C, Merk C, Pönitzsch G, Rehdanz K, Schmidt U (2018) Public perception of climate engineering and carbon capture and storage in Germany: survey evidence. Clim Policy 18:471–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1304888
Campbell-Arvai V, Hart PS, Raimi KT, Wolske KS (2017) The influence of learning about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on support for mitigation policies. Clim Change 143:321–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2005-1
Carvalho A, Riquito M (2022) ‘It’s just a Band-Aid!’: Public engagement with geoengineering and the politics of the climate crisis. Public Underst Sci 31:903–920
Chen Z-A, Li Q, Liu L-C, Zhang X, Kuang L, Jia L, Liu G (2015) A large national survey of public perceptions of CCS technology in China. Appl Energy 158:366–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.046
Colvin RM, Kemp L, Talberg A, De Castella C, Downie C, Friel S, Grant WJ (2020) Learning from the climate change debate to avoid polarisation on negative emissions. Environ Commun 14:23–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1630463
Corner A, Pidgeon N (2015) Like artificial trees? The effect of framing by natural analogy on public perceptions of geoengineering. Clim Change 130:425–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1148-6
Corner A, Parkhill K, Pidgeon N, Vaughan NE (2013) Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Glob Environ Change 23:938–947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.06.002
Cox E, Pidgeon N, Spence E, Thomas G (2018) Blurred lines: the ethics and policy of greenhouse gas removal at scale. Front Environ Sci 6:38. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00038
Cox E, Spence E, Pidgeon N (2020) Public perceptions of carbon dioxide removal in the United States and the United Kingdom. Nat Clim Change 10:744–749. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0823-z
Cummings CL, Rosenthal S (2018) Climate change and technology: examining opinion formation of geoengineering. Environ Syst Decis 38(2):208–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-018-9683-8
Cummings CL, Lin SH, Trump BD (2017) Public perceptions of climate geoengineering: a systematic review of the literature. Clim Res 73:247–264. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01475
Demski C, Butler C, Parkhill KA, Spence A, Pidgeon NF (2015) Public values for energy system change. Glob Environ Change 34:59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.06.014
Di Giusto B, Lavallee JP, Yu T-Y (2018) Towards an East Asian model of climate change awareness: A questionnaire study among university students in Taiwan. PLoS ONE 13(10):e0206298. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206298
Duan H (2010) The public perspective of carbon capture and storage for CO2 emission reductions in China. Energy Policy 38:5281–5289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.040
Dumbrell NP, Kragt ME, Gibson FL (2016) What carbon farming activities are farmers likely to adopt? A best–worst scaling survey. Land Use Policy 54:29–37
Gao AM-Z (2016) The public acceptance and legal issues of carbon capture and storage technology in Taiwan. 법학논총 35:431–469
Hart PS, Campbell-Arvai V, Wolske KS, Raimi KT (2022) Moral hazard or not? The effects of learning about carbon dioxide removal on perceptions of climate mitigation in the United States. Energy Res Soc Sci 89:102656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102656
Horton J (2015) Why we should treat SRM and CDR separately—Joshua B. Horton | Forum for climate engineering assessment. https://ceassessment.org/why-we-should-treat-srm-and-cdr-separately-joshua-b-horton/. Accessed 26 Aug 2022
Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy (2020) Explaining carbon removal. In: Am. Univ.https://www.american.edu/sis/centers/carbon-removal/explaining-carbon-removal.cfm. Accessed 13 Jul 2023
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018) Global warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2022) Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working Group III to the sixth assessment report Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926
Itaoka K, Saito A, Akai M (2005) Public acceptance of CO2 capture and storage technology: a survey of public opinion to explore influential factors. In: Rubin ES
Itaoka K, Okuda Y, Saito A, Akai M (2009) Influential information and factors for social acceptance of CCS: the 2nd round survey of public opinion in Japan. Energy Procedia 1:4803–4810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.307
Jobin M, Siegrist M (2020) Support for the deployment of climate engineering: a comparison of ten different technologies. Risk Anal 40:1058–1078. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13462
Lawrence MG, Schäfer S, Muri H, Muri H, Scott V, Oschlies A, Vaughan NE, Boucher O, Schmidt H, Haywood J, Scheffran J (2018) Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Nat Commun 9:3734. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05938-3
Liu JC-E (2023) Public opinion on climate change in China—evidence from two national surveys. PLOS Clim 2:e0000065. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000065
Lomax G, Lenton TM, Adeosun A, Workman M (2015) Investing in negative emissions. Nat Clim Change 5:498–500. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2627
McLaren D, Parkhill KA, Corner A, Vaughan NE, Pidgeon NF (2016) Public conceptions of justice in climate engineering: evidence from secondary analysis of public deliberation. Glob Environ Change 41:64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.09.002
McLaren D, Willis R, Szerszynski B, Tyfield D, Markusson N (2021) Attractions of delay: using deliberative engagement to investigate the political and strategic impacts of greenhouse gas removal technologies. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space
Minx JC, Lamb WF, Callaghan MW, Fuss S, Hilaire J, Creutzig F, Amann T (2018) Negative emissions—part 1: research landscape and synthesis. Environ Res Lett 13:063001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9b
Moffat K, Lacey J, Zhang A, Leipold S (2016) The social licence to operate: a critical review. Forestry 89:477–488
National Academies of Sciences (2019) Negative emissions technologies and reliable sequestration: a research agenda
Osaka S, Bellamy R, Castree N (2021) Framing “nature-based” solutions to climate change. Wires Clim Change 12:e729. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.729
Pew Research Center (2021) In response to climate change, citizens in advanced economies are willing to alter how they live and work
Pidgeon NF, Spence E (2017) Perceptions of enhanced weathering as a biological negative emissions option. Biol Lett 13:20170024. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2017.0024
Pidgeon N, Parkhill K, Corner A, Vaughan N (2013) Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nat Clim Change 3:451–457. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1807
Raimi KT (2021) Public perceptions of geoengineering. Curr Opin Psychol 42:66–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.03.012
Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Barnard P, Moomaw WR (2020) World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency. Bioscience 70:8–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088
Rothkirch JV, Ejderyan O, Stauffacher M (2024) Carbon dioxide removal: a source of ambition or of delays? Examining expectations for CDR in Swiss climate policy. Environ Sci Pol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103659
Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. Royal Society, London
Saito A, Itaoka K, Akai M (2019) Those who care about CCS—results from a Japanese survey on public understanding of CCS. Int J Greenh Gas Control 84:121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.02.014
Schleussner C-F, Rogelj J, Schaeffer M, Lissner T, Licker R, Fischer EM, Knutti R, Levermann A, Frieler K, Hare W (2016) Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal. Nat Clim Change 6:827–835. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3096
Smith P, Davis SJ, Creutzig F, Fuss S, Minx J, Gabrielle B, Kato E (2016) Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat Clim Change 6:42–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2870
Smith SM, Geden O, Nemet GF et al. (2023) The state of carbon dioxide removal—1st edition. The state of carbon dioxide removal
Spence E, Cox E, Pidgeon N (2021) Exploring cross-national public support for the use of enhanced weathering as a land-based carbon dioxide removal strategy. Clim Change 165:23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03050-y
Sugiyama M, Asayama S, Kosugi T (2020) The North-South divide on public perceptions of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering? A survey in six Asia–Pacific countries. Environ Commun 14:641–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1699137
Sun Y, Han Z (2018) Climate change risk perception in Taiwan: correlation with individual and societal factors. Int J Environ Res Public Health 15(1):91
Terwel BW, ter Mors E, Daamen DDL (2012) It’s not only about safety: beliefs and attitudes of 811 local residents regarding a CCS project in Barendrecht. Int J Greenh Gas Control 9:41–51
The Royal Society, Royal Academy of Engineering (2018) Greenhouse gas removal. https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/greenhouse-gas-removal/royal-society-greenhousegas-removal-report-2018.pdf
Tokushige K, Akimoto K, Tomoda T (2007) Public perceptions on the acceptance of geological storage of carbon dioxide and information influencing the acceptance. Int J Greenh Gas Control 1:101–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00020-5
van Vuuren DP, Deetman S, van Vliet J, van den Berg M, van Ruijven BJ, Koelbl B (2013) The role of negative CO2 emissions for reaching 2 °C—insights from integrated assessment modelling. Clim Change 118:15–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0680-5
Visschers VHM, Shi J, Siegrist M, Arvai J (2017) Beliefs and values explain international differences in perception of solar radiation management: insights from a cross-country survey. Clim Change 142(3–4):531–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1970-8
Wang BB, Sheng YT, Ding M, Lyv M, **ng JL, Zhou QN (2017) Climate change in the Chinese mind. China Center for Climate Change Communication, Bei**g
Wenger A, Stauffacher M, Dallo I (2021) Public perception and acceptance of negative emission technologies—framing effects in Switzerland. Clim Change 167:03150
Wibeck V, Hansson A, Anshelm J, Asayama S, Dilling L, Feetham PM, Hauser R, Ishii A, Sugiyama M (2017) Making sense of climate engineering: a focus group study of lay publics in four countries. Clim Change 145(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2067-0
Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos
Wolske KS, Raimi KT, Campbell-Arvai V, Hart PS (2019) Public support for carbon dioxide removal strategies: the role of tampering with nature perceptions. Clim Change 152:345–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02375-z
Wright MJ, Teagle DAH, Feetham PM (2014) A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering. Nat Clim Change 4:106–110. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2087
Yang L, Zhang X, McAlinden KJ (2016) The effect of trust on people’s acceptance of CCS (carbon capture and storage) technologies: evidence from a survey in the People’s Republic of China. Energy 96:69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.12.044
Yu TK, Lavallee JP, Di Giusto B, Chang IC, Yu TY (2020) Risk perception and response toward climate change for higher education students in Taiwan. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:24749–24759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07450-7
Acknowledgements
This research was partially supported by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (Grant No.: JPMEERF20212004) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency, Japan. This work was also supported by the Joint Research Scheme for Japan–Taiwan Young Researchers under the Japan–Taiwan Exchange Association.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Ethical considerations
According to the Research Ethics and Information Security Guidelines of the Research Ethics and Information Security Committee, Institute for Future Initiatives, The University of Tokyo, this research is exempt from ethical review as long as the researchers have received mandatory research ethics training, which we did. Participants’ privacy was protected, and they were informed that they could stop completing the survey at any time and that their responses would be anonymized.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Handled by Daniel del Barrio Alvarez, University of Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku, Japan.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Atris, A.M., Sugiyama, M., Chen, Yc. et al. Public perception of carbon dioxide removal in three Asian regions. Sustain Sci (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01515-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01515-4