4.7 Article

Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.06.002

Keywords

Geoengineering; Public engagement; Climate change; Nature

Funding

  1. Natural Environment Research Council
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [RES-066-27-00013]
  3. EPSRC [EP/I014721/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. ESRC [not_applicable] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. NERC [NE/G007748/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Economic and Social Research Council [not_applicable] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/I014721/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/G007748/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Anthropogenic influence on the climate - and possible societal responses to it - offers a unique window through which to examine the way people think about and relate to the natural world. This paper reports data from four, one-day deliberative workshops conducted with members of the UK Public during early 2012. The workshops focused on geoengineering - the deliberate, large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment - as one of three possible responses to climate change (alongside mitigation and adaptation). Here, we explore one of the most pervasive and wide-ranging themes to emerge from the workshops: whether geoengineering represented an unprecedented human intervention into 'nature', and what the moral consequences of this might be. Using the concept of 'messing with nature' as an analytical lens, we explore public perceptions of geoengineering. We also reflect on why 'messing with nature' was such a focal point for debate and disagreement, and whether the prospect of geoengineering may reveal new dimensions to the way that people think about the natural world, and their relationship to it. (C) 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available