Public Understanding of Solar Radiation Management
dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/12763597/53098873.pdf?sequence=1
Abstract
We report the results of the first large-scale international survey of public perception of geoengineering and solar radiation management (SRM). Our sample of 3105 individuals in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom was recruited by survey firms that administer internet surveys to nationally representative population samples. Measured familiarity was higher than expected, with 8% and 45% of the population correctly defining the terms geoengineering and climate engineering respectively. There was strong support for allowing the study of SRM. Support decreased and uncertainty rose as subjects were asked about their support for using SRM immediately, or to stop a climate emergency. Support for SRM is associated with optimism about scientific research, a valuing of SRM’s benefits and a stronger belief that SRM is natural, while opposition is associated with an attitude that nature should not be manipulated in this way. The potential risks of SRM are important drivers of public perception with the most salient being damage to the ozone layer and unknown risks. SRM is a new technology and public opinions are just forming; thus all reported results are sensitive to changes in framing, future information on risks and benefits, and changes to context.
Keywords: geoengineering, solar radiation management, climate change, public opinion, public awareness
3.4. Conspiracy theories
One of the voices emerging in the SRM debate is that of ‘chemtrails’ believers. This small group believes that organizations, such as governments, are already distributing chemicals in the atmosphere for a variety of purposes, ranging from culling the population to mind control. We found that 2.6% of the subjects believe that it is completely true that the government has a secret program that uses airplanes to put harmful chemicals into the air, and 14% of the sample believes that this is partly true. Distributions across the three countries do not vary substantially.
_____________________
No mention of any further investigation into this aspect of the admitted SRM and GEOENGINEERING. So basically, the text admits to SRM & geoengineering, AND CHEMTRAILS. It only SPECIFICALLY addresses ‘culling the population to mind control’ in a manner that suggests those two to be ‘fringe’ opinions of ‘conspiracy theorists’… So what of OTHER applications, content mixtures, purposes? No mention…
Nanotech? SmartDust? Bio/pharma?
Interesting list of Citations showing what HAS been/CURRENTLY is done, and been ‘proposed’:
Barrett S 2008 The incredible economics of geoengineering Environ. Resour. Econ. 39 45–54
Blackstock J and Long J 2010 The politics of geoengineering Science 327 527
Blackstock J J, Battisti D S, Caldeira K, Eardley D M, Katz J I, Keith D W, Patrinos A
A N, Schrag D P, Socolow R H and Koonin S E 2009 Climate Engineering
Responses to Climate Emergencies (Santa Barbara, CA: Novim)
Caldeira K and Matthews H D 2007 Transient climate-carbon simulations of planetary geoengineering Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 104 9949–54
Corner A and Pidgeon N 2009 Geoengineering the climate: the social and ethical implications Environment 52 24–37
Crutzen P 2006 Albedo enhancements by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma Clim. Change 77 211–20
Fischhoff B 2000 Informed consent in eliciting environmental values
Environ. Sci. Technol. 38 1439–44
Fischhoff B and Fischhoff I 2001 Publics’ opinions of
biotechnologies AgBioForum 4 155–62
House of Commons—Science and Technology Committee 2010 The
Regulation of Geoengineering (London: The Stationery Office
Limited) HC 221
Keith D, Parson E and Morgan G 2010 Research on global sunblock
needed now Nature 463 426–7
Keith D W 2000 Geoengineering the climate: history and prospect
Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 25 245–84
Kiehl J T 2006 Geoengineering climate change: treating the
symptom over the cause? Clim. Change 77 227–8
Leiserowitz T 2010 Geoengineering and climate change in the public mind Asilomar Int. Conf. on Climate Intervention Technologies:
Minimizing the Potential Risk of Research to Counter-Balance
Climate Change and its Impacts (Asilomar: Climate Institute) Morgan M G,
Fischhoff B, Bostrom A and Atman C J 2002 Risk
Communication: A Mental Models Approach (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press)
NAS—Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy 1992
Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation and the Science Base (Washington, DC: National Academy Press) pp 433–64
National Environmental Research Council 2010 Experiment Earth? Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering (UK: Ipsos Mori)
Ricke K L, Morgan M G and Allen M R 2010 Regional climate response to solar-radiation management Nature Geosci.
3 537–41
Robock A, Marquardt A, Kravitz B and Stenchikov G 2009 Benefits, risks and costs of stratospheric geoengineering Geophys. Res. Lett. 36 L19703
Robock A, Oman L and Stenchikov G 2008 Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections J. Geophys. Res. 113 D16101
Shepherd J et al 2009 Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty (London: The Royal Society)
Siegrist M and Cvetkovich G 2000 Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge Risk Anal. 20 713–9
Slovic P 1995 The construction of preference Am. Psychol. 50 364–71
Spence A, Venables D, Pidgeon N, Poortinga W and Demski C 2010
Public Perceptions of Climate Change and Energy Futures in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted in January–March 2010 (Technical Report) (Cardiff: School of Psychology) (Understanding Risk Working Paper 10-01 www.understanding-risk.org)
Tilmes S, Muller R and Salawitch R 2008 The sensitivity of polar ozone depletion to proposed geoengineering schemes Science 320 1201–4
AC