Mapping public appraisals of carbon dioxide removal
Mapping public appraisals of carbon dioxide removal
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102593
复制
发表时间：
2022-09-01
影响因子：
8.9
通讯作者：
Bellamy, Rob
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bellamy, Rob
实现净零排放目标的努力将依赖于二氧化碳去除（CDR）方法。民主、可信和社会智能的研究、开发、示范和部署CDR方法，以帮助实现净零，将高度依赖于不同的公众如何评估它们，最终取决于哪些群体支持或反对它们。本文开发了一种新颖的，具有全国代表性的方法，用于英国公众成员（n = 2,111）对五种政策相关的CDR方法进行多标准评估-加上根本不追求CDR的选项。结果表明，公众支持将CDR纳入英国气候政策。通常被描述为“自然”或“基于自然”的CDR方法比“技术”方法得到的评价更高，从低到低的顺序是：栖息地恢复、造林、建筑木材、具有碳捕获和储存的生物能源，以及直接的空气碳捕获和储存。然而，在对技术方法的评价方面没有重大分歧，因此它们可能不那么两极分化，这表明，对自然的东西（因此更有吸引力）的普遍先入为主的观念可能阻碍了它们的发展。主要由公共部门和非政府组织开发的CDR方法也比由私人利益开发的方法得到更高的评价。期权评估的区域差异揭示了特定CDR方法在哪些地方更有可能得到支持或反对；强调将CDR的身体要求与适当的社会环境相匹配的重要性。人口统计和社会经济分析表明，对CDR方法评价最高的人往往是年龄较大的受访者、男性或社会地位较高的人。最后，在英国脱欧公投中，那些持等级世界观的人比持平等世界观的人更不支持CDR。
Efforts to deliver on net zero emissions targets are set to rely on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) methods. Democratic, trustworthy and socially intelligent research, development, demonstration and deployment of CDR methods in aid of net zero will be highly dependent on how different publics evaluate them, and ultimately which groups support or oppose them. This paper develops a novel, nationally representative method for the multi-criteria appraisal of five policy relevant CDR methods - plus an option not to pursue CDR at all - by members of the British public (n = 2,111). The results show that the public supports the inclusion of CDR in UK climate policy. CDR methods often characterised as 'natural' or 'nature-based' are appraised more highly than 'technological' ones, in the descending order: habitat restoration, afforestation, wood in construction, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, and direct air carbon capture and storage. Yet, there is no significant disagreement in the appraisal of technological methods and they therefore may be less polarizing, suggesting that popular preconceptions of what is natural - and therefore more attractive - may be holding them back. CDR methods being mainly developed by public sector and non-governmental organisations are also appraised more highly than those being developed by private interests. Regional differences in option appraisal reveal where particular CDR methods are more or less likely to be supported or opposed; stressing the importance of matching physical requirements for CDR with appropriate social contexts. Demographic and socio-economic analyses show that people who appraise CDR methods most highly tend to be older respondents, male, or of a higher social grade. Finally, those with hierarchical worldviews and who voted 'leave' in the UK's referendum on EU membership are less supportive of CDR than those with egalitarian worldviews and who voted 'remain'.