未来能源研究所-启发心理模型理解支持和反对太阳能地球工程研究的推理（英）

GeoengineeringResearch

ElicitingMentalModelsfor

andAgainstSolar

UnderstandingReasoningfor

DaleS.Rothman,PayamAminpour,IlanChabay,JenniferHelgeson

WorkingPaper23-25

May2023

ResourcesfortheFuturei

AbouttheAuthors

DaleS.RothmanisanassociateprofessorintheCollegeofScienceatGeorgeMasonUniversity.Heiscurrentlydoingresearchintheuseofscenariodevelopmentandintegratedmodelingasappliedtosocial-ecologicalsystems.Hisrecentworkhasfocusedonapplyingthesetoissuesrelatedtoclimatechangeeconomicsandpolicy,includingnewtechnologiesforgreenhousegasremovalandsolarradiationmanagement.

PayamAminpourisapostdoctoralfellowatJohnsHopkinsUniversityandtheNationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnology.Aminpour’sresearchrevolvesaroundhowtoharnessthecollectiveintelligenceofhumancrowdstoaddresscomplexissuesaroundsocialandenvironmentalsustainabilitylikeclimatechange,overfishing,urbanization,andmostrecentlyCOVID-19.

IlanChabayisanadjunctprofessorintheSchoolofSustainability,ArizonaStateUniversity,chairoftheExternalResearchEvaluationCommitteeoftheResearchInstituteforHumanityandNatureinKyoto,Japan,andco-directorofKLASICA,theKnowledge,Learning,andSocietalChangeAlliance,whichisanopeninternationalresearchalliancefoundedbyIlanin2008.KLASICAconductstransdisciplinaryresearchatthecommunityandregionalscaletodeveloppolicyandpractice-relevantknowledgeoffactors,includingnarratives,thatpositivelyornegativelyinfluencecollectivebehaviorchangetojust,equitableculturesofsustainability.

JenniferHelgesonisaffiliatedwiththeVirginiaPolytechnicInstituteandStateUniversity(VirginiaTech)SchoolofPublic&InternationalAffairs.Herresearchinterestsfocusondecisionscience,includingsurveyassessmentsandeconomicanalysesthatconsiderbehavioralaspectsandapproachestodealingwithenvironmentalissues.Helgeson’sresearchrevolvesaroundresiliencetohazards(shocksandstressors)inthebuiltandnaturalenvironments,withconsiderationforcost-effectivenessofcommunity-scaleclimatemitigationandadaptationefforts.

Acknowledgments

WeacknowledgesupportfromtheL.A.D.ClimateFundandusefulcommentsandfeedbackfromResourcesfortheFuture(RFF)workshops’participants.WearealsogratefultoMariiaBelaia,EdwardParson,StevenGray,AmandaBorth,andMirandaBoettcherforhelpfulcommentsanddiscussions.

ElicitingMentalModelsforUnderstandingReasoningforandAgainstSolarGeoengineeringResearchii

AboutRFF

ResourcesfortheFuture(RFF)isanindependent,nonprofitresearchinstitutioninWashington,DC.Itsmissionistoimproveenvironmental,energy,andnaturalresourcedecisionsthroughimpartialeconomicresearchandpolicyengagement.RFFiscommittedtobeingthemostwidelytrustedsourceofresearchinsightsandpolicysolutionsleadingtoahealthyenvironmentandathrivingeconomy.

Workingpapersareresearchmaterialscirculatedbytheirauthorsforpurposesofinformationanddiscussion.Theyhavenotnecessarilyundergoneformalpeerreview.TheviewsexpressedherearethoseoftheindividualauthorsandmaydifferfromthoseofotherRFFexperts,itsofficers,oritsdirectors.

AbouttheProject

TheResourcesfortheFutureSolarGeoengineeringresearchprojectappliestoolsfrommultiplesocialscienceresearchdisciplinestobetterunderstandtherisks,potentialbenefits,andsocietalimplicationsofsolargeoengineeringasapossibleapproachtohelpreduceclimateriskalongsideaggressiveandnecessarymitigationandadaptationefforts.Theprojectbeganin2020withaseriesofexpertworkshopsconvenedundertheSRMTrans-AtlanticDialogue.Thesemeetingsresultedina2021articleinSciencethatlaysoutasetofkeysocialscienceresearchquestionsassociatedwithsolargeoengineeringresearchandpotentialdeployment.TheProjectfollowedthiswithadditionalsponsoredresearch,includingacompetitivesolicitationdesignedtoaddressresearchareashighlightedintheSciencearticle.Thispaperisoneofeightresearchpapersresultingfromthatcompetitionandsupportedbytwoauthorworkshops.Akeygoalofthesolicitationandtheoverallprojectistoengagewithabroadersetofresearchersfromaroundtheglobe,agrowingnumberofinterestedstakeholders,andthepublic.

SharingOurWork

OurworkisavailableforsharingandadaptationunderanAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives4.0International(CCBY-NC-ND4.0)license.Youcancopyandredistributeourmaterialinanymediumorformat;youmustgiveappropriatecredit,providealinktothelicense,andindicateifchangesweremade,andyoumaynotapplyadditionalrestrictions.Youmaydosoinanyreasonablemanner,butnotinanywaythatsuggeststhelicensorendorsesyouoryouruse.Youmaynotusethematerialforcommercialpurposes.Ifyouremix,transform,orbuilduponthematerial,youmaynotdistributethemodifiedmaterial.Formoreinformation,visit

/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

.

ResourcesfortheFutureiii

Contents

1.Introduction1

2.MaterialsandMethods3

2.1.LiteratureReview4

2.2.ParticipantSelection5

2.3.TheSurvey6

2.3.1.SurveyDesign6

3.Results7

4.Reflections10

5.References11

A.Appendices12

A.1.AppendixA:ConceptsandDefinitions12

A.2.AppendixB:TheSurveyQuestions13

A.3.AppendixC:FuzzyCognitiveMap(FCM)20

ResourcesfortheFuture1

1.Introduction

Solargeoengineering(SG)isapotentialapproachtoreducingglobalclimatechangeimpactsbycounteractingradiativeforcingchangedrivenbyincreasedatmosphericconcentrationofgreenhousegases(GHGs).Thisnegativeradiativeforcingcanbeproducedinmanyways,suchaspaintingroofswhite,modifyingcloudproperties,orinstallingmirrorsinspace.Stratosphericaerosolinjection(SAI),wheresmallreflectingparticlesareinjectedintothestratosphere,maybethemostfeasibleandgloballyeffectiveapproach(NASEM2012).Thisisalsowhyitdrawsthemostattentionandstrongerdisagreements.SAI(henceforthSG)isthefocusofthisstudy.Therehasbeennoformalglobaldebateonthistopic,withdiscussionsconfinedtoconferenceandworkshopmeetingswithlimitedinternationalandsectoralrepresentation.

MostpeoplewouldagreethatSGshouldnotbedeployedinthenearterm.Thetechnologyhasnotreachedthestagewhereitcanbeseriouslyconsidered,andmanyfundamentalquestions,bothtechnicalandsocial,remainunanswered(NASEM2012).However,adebatehasarisenaboutwhetherweshouldevenuseresourcestoresearchSG.Inthepresentstudy,weexplorethelatterquestionbyexaminingexpertreasoningconcerningSGresearch.

Lookingatinformationasacommoditythatreducesuncertainty,economistswouldsuggestthatthevalueofanyinformationisnonnegative.Assuch,usinganextensionofthewidelyuseddynamicintegratedassessmentmodelofclimateandeconomy(DICE),Hardinget.al(2022)estimatethatthevalueofinformationabouttheeffectivenessofSGisaslargeasthataboutequilibriumclimatesensitivity(Harding2022).Theyalsoshowthatover-andunderconfidenceaboutSGareequallyharmful.NASEM(2012)callsforcautiousexplorationofSG,whichisarecurringthemeindiscussionsofSGresearch,rootedinconcernsarounditsproceduralaspectsand

consequences.

OppositiontoSGresearchtakesvariousforms.SomeopponentssuggestthatSGiseithernotneededorunacceptableunderanycircumstance,soresearchisunnecessary(Biermann2021).Arelatedconcern,referredtoasthe“slipperyslope,”statesthatresearchitselfincreasesthelikelihoodofSGdeployment.Thisisdue,inpart,topotentialtechnologicalandinstitutionallock-in,wherebyunnecessaryandunwarranteddeploymentmayemergefromresearch.Similarly,theysuggestthatresearchconductedlargelybytheGlobalNorthwouldonlypreservecurrentinequalitiesintheworld(Stephens2020)andfurtherconcentratepoweramongelites(StephensandSurprise2021).PerhapsthemostcommonargumentagainstSGresearchisthepossibilitythatevenresearchalonewouldreduceeffortstowardemissionsabatement(Stephensetal.2021).

Inthecontextoftheongoingclimatecrisis,proponentsofSGresearchurgegovernmentstoevaluateallactionoptions,includingSG(GiveResearchintoSolar

ElicitingMentalModelsforUnderstandingReasoningforandAgainstSolarGeoengineeringResearch2

GeoengineeringaChance2021).Theydoshareseveralofopponents’concerns.Ratherthanforgoingresearch,however,theyencouragecapacitybuildingindevelopingcountriesandargueforaresponsibleinternationalprogram(Keith2017).Otherssuggestthattheresearchprogramshouldincludesafeguardstopreventunwarranteddeployment,includingexplicitconditionsunderwhichdeploymentisjustifiable(Jamieson1996).Asfordeterringemissionsabatement,thecounterargumentstatesthatSGresearchmaychangetheperceptionofhowseriousclimaterisksare,triggeringanincreaseinemissionsabatement.Inaddition,proponentssuggestthatevenifemissionsdeterrenceoccurred,itwouldbecharacterizedbyincreasedoverallwelfare.Finally,proponentsarguethatabetterunderstandingofnotonlythetechnicalbutalsosocial,political,andeconomicaspectsofSGmayimprovedecisionmakingif,andwhen,deploymentiseverconsidered.SuppressingSGresearchmaynotpreventfuturedeploymentbutrathermakeitlessinformedandmoredangerous(Parson2021).

Bothsideshavesomepointsofagreement,suchastheimportanceofaninternationalgovernancemechanismthatisjustandinclusive.However,expectationsdiffersignificantly.Whilemanyproponentsbelieveinternationalgovernancewouldemergefrommultilateralagreementsandinformalscientificcooperation,manyopponentsarguethatdemocraticandfairgovernanceofSGisunattainable(NASEM2012).Finally,notallopponentsargueforanunconditionalmoratoriumonresearch.Instead,theyproposeasetofconditionsthatmustbesatisfied.Forexample,BiermannandMöller(2019)suggestthatdevelopingcountriesshouldleadthediscourseonSGresearch.Jamieson(1996)callsontheUnitedNationstogovernSGresearchthatotherwisemaybemilitarizedorsecuritized.

Inanutshell,bothopponentsandproponentssharemanyconcerns;however,theyarisefromdifferentbaseassumptionsandreasoning.Inaddition,botharetypicallydrivenbytheprincipleofprecaution,buttheirinterpretationsandconclusionsdiverge.Thiswarrantsanin-depthstudyoftheunderlyingreasoningaboutSGresearch.

Anotherimportantcaveatregardingthedebateisthedifferencebetweenin-labandsmall-scalefieldSGresearch.By“in-labresearch,”followingParsonandKeith(2013),wemeancomputersimulations,chemistryexperimentsincontrolledlaboratories,andsocialandpoliticalscienceresearch.By“small-scalefieldresearch,”wemeanactivitieswithtrivialandonlylocalenvironmentalimpactthatissmallerthancommoncommercialactivities.Thus,thedebateisnotjustbetweenopponentsandproponentsofSGresearch,butbetweenthreegroups:(a)thosewhosupportbothtypesofresearch,(b)thosewhosupportonlyin-labresearchundercurrentcircumstances,and(c)thosewhoopposebothtypes.

Inthepresentpaper,weextendtheexistinganalysesoftheargumentsforandagainstSGresearchbyhaving10expertscompleteaquestionnaire,whichisusedtocreatea

ResourcesfortheFuture3

fuzzycognitivemap(FCM)

1

oftheirthinkingrelatedtothistopic.Thisisfollowedbyanonlineinterview,inwhichtheinitialmapsarepresented,discussed,refined,and“verified.”Ourcontributionsaretwofold.First,oursisthefirststudytoemployfuzzy cognitivemappingtoanalyzeattitudestowardSGresearch.Second,weexplicitlydistinguishandsystematicallycompareattitudestowardin-labandsmall-scalefield research.DiscussionsconcerningSGdonotalwaysconsidertheseseparately.Insome cases,argumentsareputforwardfor/againstbothin-labandsmall-scalefield research,althoughnotstatedsoexplicitly.

Theremainderofthepaperisorganizedasfollows.Thefollowingsectiondetailsourmethodology.Section3presents(preliminary)resultsaccompaniedbyadiscussion.

2.MaterialsandMethods

Weemployedamixed-methodapproach.Westartedwithaliteraturereview,creatingacorpusofmaterialfromthepeer-reviewedandgrayliterature(Section2.1).Next,weconductedacontentandtextualanalysistoidentifykeysystemcomponentsandtheirinteractions(“concepts”and“causaledges,”respectively,intheterminologyoffuzzycognitivemapping)tocreateaprototypeconceptualmodel.Atthispoint,onlythedirectionofcausalitywasincludedinthecausaledges;neitherthesignorstrengthwasspecified.Thisconceptualmodelwasusedtodesignastructuredsurveyinstrumentintheformofaseriesofquestionsrelatedtoeachsystemcomponentanditsrelatedcausaledges.Themodelandaccompanyingsurveywererefinedinapilotphasewheretheyweretestedon,anddiscussedwith,threeexpertsinthefield.

Inparallel,weidentifiedapoolofpotentialparticipantsinthestudyandcreatedasubsample(Section2.2).Theparticipantswereaskedtocompletethesurvey.Theirresponseswereusedtospecifythesignandstrengthofthecausaledges,therebyconstructingindividualFCMs.Theywerealsoabletosuggestadditionalconceptsandcausaledges.

AfterweconstructedtheseindividualFCMs,eachparticipantwasinvitedtoparticipateinaprivate,onlineinterviewtoreview,validate,and,ifdesired,modifythemap.Atthebeginningofeachinterview,wepresentedourobjective,explainedtheprocessandmethodology,andremindedparticipantsthataspartof

reviewing/validatingapersonalizedmap,theyshouldfeelfreetoaddanddeleteanyconceptsandadd,delete,andalterthestrength/directionofanyedges.Thiswasdone,inpart,bydiscussinganyinconsistenciesbetweentheirmapsandtheiranswerstospecificquestionsontheoveralldirectandindirecteffectsofSGresearch.Weusedthesefinalmapsforouranalysis,inwhichwecomparedandcontrastmapsbetweentheparticipants.

1SeeAppendixCformoreonfuzzycognitivemapping.

ElicitingMentalModelsforUnderstandingReasoningforandAgainstSolarGeoengineeringResearch4

Wemeasuretheoverallmerits/risksofresearchintermsofitsultimatenetconsequencesforglobalsocietyinthemedium(around2050)andlonger(around2100)terms.Weexplicitlyassumethatthosewhosupport(oppose)researchbelievethatsocietywouldderiveanetbenefit(netloss)whenaccountingforbothpotentialpositiveandnegativeconsequences.BecausetheviewsinoppositionandsupportmaybeconditionalondevelopmentsinSGandclimateconditions,westressthatourresultsareinthecontextofthecurrentstateofaffairs.

2.1.LiteratureReview

WeconductedanextensivesearchofpublicationsintheThomasReutersWebofSciencelookingforthekeywords“solargeoengineering”research,“solarradiationmanagement”research,“geoengineeringresearch,”and“climateintervention”researchinthetitleandabstract.Theonlyfilterweimplementedwastoexcludebooksduetotheassociatedcomplexityofcontentanalysis,butweincludedbookchapters.Aftermanuallyexcludingnon-SAIstudies,wefound256publicationsthatfallintooneofthefollowingcategories:

•Focusonordevotesubstantialattentiontotheargument(s)for/againstSGresearch,

•FocusonSGresearchgovernance,

•Argumentsarestatedaspartofliteraturereviewordiscussion,

•Publicopinionsurvey,and

•Argumentsfor/againstSGresearchnotmentionedormentionedwithoutsignificantelaboration.

Tobalanceouranalysismanagementandoutcomequality,wechosetoproceedwithpublicationsfromthefirstcategory,yielding59publicationsfordeepercontentanalysis.Wereferredtothebroadersetofpublicationswhencreatingtheparticipantpool(Section2.2).

Aspartofthecontentanalysis,wederivedconceptsandrelationshipsfrompublicationsandnarrowedthisdowntothesetofconceptsandstatementstobepresentedtoparticipantsbycategorizingthemintothemes.Weendedupwith22conceptsand61relationships,detailedinAppendicesAandB,respectively.Toprovidegreaterclarityandformasharedvocabulary,wespecifieddefinitionsfortheconcepts(seeAppendixA).Adocumentwiththesedefinitionswasprovidedtotheparticipantsbeforethesurvey,andthesurveytoolwasequippedwithapop-upinformationwindowthatshowedtheconceptdefinitionwhenitwaspointedtobytheparticipantastheycompletedthesurvey.

ResourcesfortheFuture5

2.2.ParticipantSelection

Ourpoolofparticipantsincludedscholarsfromacademia,government,andNGOs,whoarefamiliarwithSGtoanextentthattheyareabletoformwhatweconsideredtobeaknowledgeableopinion.Weconstructedthepotentialpoolfromtheauthorsofpublicationsinthefirstthreecategoriesfromtheliteraturereview.Toensurethatweincludethoseopponentswhohavenotpublishedonthetopicbutexpressedtheiroppositioninsomeotherform,weincludedtheinitiatorsandfirstsignatoriesoftheCallforanInternationalNon-UseAgreementonSolarGeoengineering(NASEM2012).AfterexcludingparticipantsoftheworkshoporganizedbyRFF,wheretheinitialprojectoutlineandtheresultswerepresented,wearrivedatjustover250scholars.

Ourfinalsample(thosewhobothcompletedthequestionnaireandhadafollow-upinterview)included10scholars,representingthosewhohaveexpressedargumentsforandagainstSGresearch.Whilewestrivedtocreateageographical-,discipline-andgender-diversesample,wecautionagainstgeneralizingourresultstorepresentthefullbreadthofscholars’opinions.

Figure1.Participants’BackgroundInformation

Note:Informationincludesnumberofparticipantsacrossagegroups,countriesofresidence,andthenumberofyearsparticipatingindiscussionsofsolargeoengineering.

Sixparticipantsidentifiedasmaleandfourasfemale.Theirexpertisespansphysicalsciences,socialsciences,artsandhumanities,lifesciencesandbiomedicine,andtechnology,withsevenemployedinacademia,twoinnonprofit,andoneinagovernmentorganization.Eighthavecoauthoredmorethantwopublications(peerreviewedorgrayliterature)onSG,andtwocoauthoredoneortwopublications.Figure1illustratesadditionalbackgrounddata.

ElicitingMentalModelsforUnderstandingReasoningforandAgainstSolarGeoengineeringResearch6

2.3.TheSurvey

2.3.1.SurveyDesign

Themajorityofthequestionsaimedatidentifyingthesignandstrengthofthose61relationshipsidentifiedintheliteraturereview(Section2.1).Thesequestionshadthesamegeneralstructure,inwhichweaskedtheparticipanthowanincreaseinoneconceptwoulddirectlyinfluenceasecondconcept.Theresponsesusedthefollowing7-pointLikertscaleoranoptiontoindicate“Idon’tknow”:

stronglydecrease—decrease—somewhatdecrease—noeffect—somewhatincrease—increase—stronglyincrease

Questionswerecategorizedintoblocks.Forthefirstblocks,eachhadasingleconceptasthetarget.Thatis,eachblockevaluatedhowotherconceptsdirectlyaffectthetarget.Theendofeachblockincludedanopen-endedquestioninvitingtheparticipanttoaddmorefactors:

“Pleaseindicateotherfactors,ifany,thatyoubelievehavesignificantdirectimpacton

CONCEPTNAME.”

Toelicitparticipants’overallimpressionofin-labresearchandsmall-scalefieldSGresearch,weintroducedthreeadditionalblocks.Thefirstaskedwhetheraparticipantsupportsoropposesresearchundercurrentcircumstances(andhowstrongly),followedbyaninquiryintoconditionsunderwhichtheymightchangetheirmind.Thescalewasasfollows:

Stronglysupport—Support—Somewhatsupport—Neithersupportnoroppose—Somewhatoppose—Oppose—Stronglyoppose

Thesecondblockaskedforaviewontheultimatenetsocietalimpactsofthetwotypesofresearch.Inabest-casescenario,thiswouldmatchtheoutcomeoftheindividualFCM.Asnoted,theseresponsesplayedakeyroleinthefollow-upinterview.

ThethirdblockincludedquestionsthatofferinsightsondesirabilityandnecessityofSGasperceivedbyrespondents.Weinquiredaboutparticipants’perceptionofthetechnicalandeconomicfeasibilityofkeepingtemperaturebelow1.5°Cand2°C(withoutovershoot)usingmitigationandcarbondioxideremoval(CDR)only.

Afinalblockrequestedbasicdemographicinformation.Asubsetofresponseswasusedintheanalysis,butnoidentifyinginformationisincludedhereorelsewhere.

ResourcesfortheFuture7

B.

3.Results

ArgumentsoverSGresearchoftenstartwiththefundamentaldisagreementastowhetheritmaybeneededinthefuture.Proponentsoftencitethepresumedinabilityoftheworldtostaybelow1.5°Cor2°Cwithoutovershootusingmitigationandnegativeemissionstechnologiesalone.WewerecuriousaboutacorrelationbetweenattitudetowardSGresearchandperceptionofthefeasibilityofkeepingtemperaturebelow1.5°C,oratleast2°C,withoutSG.Doesthisdifferbetweenin-labandsmall-scalefieldSGresearch?

Toseetheresultsforourgroupofparticipants,weplottedthetechnicalandeconomicfeasibilityofstayingbelow1.5°C(Figures2aand3a)or2°C(Figures2band3b)asperceivedbyeachparticipantagainsttheirattitudetowardin-labresearch(Figure2)andsmall-scalefieldresearch(Figure3).Here,themarkerscolor-codeisusedtodistinguish3groupsofparticipants:

•Inred:thosewhosupportbothtypesofresearch,

•Ingreen:thosewhosupportonlyin-labresearchundercurrentcircumstancesanddonotsupportsmall-scalefieldresearch,and

•Inblue:thosewhoopposebothtypesofresearch.

Figure2.AttitudeTowardIn-LabSolarGeoengineering

A.

Note:Plottedagainsttheinterviewee’sperceptionofthetechnicalandeconomicfeasibilityofkeepingglobaltemperaturebelow1.5°C(A)or2°C(B)abovepreindustriallevelswithoutovershootusingmitigation(includingcarbondioxideremoval)alone.

ElicitingMentalModelsforUnderstandingReasoningforandAgainstSolarGeoengineeringResearch8

Figure3.AttitudeTowardSmall-ScaleSolarGeoengineeringFieldResearch

A.B.

Note:Plottedagainsttheinterviewee’sperceptionofthetechnicalandeconomicfeasibilityofkeepingglobaltemperaturebelow1.5°C(A)or2°C(B)abovepreindustriallevelswithoutovershootusingmitigation(includingcarbondioxideremoval)alone.

Figure2indicatesthatstrongersupportforin-labresearchisgenerallynegativelycorrelatedwiththeperceivedfeasibilityofstayingbelow1.5°Cor2°CwithoutovershootusingmitigationandCDRalone.Figure3showsmoreoppositiontosmall-scalefieldresearch,irrespectiveoftheperceivedfeasibilityofmeetinga1.5°Cor2°CusingmitigationandCDRalone.Inbothcases,someparticipantsopposein-labresearcheventhoughtheybelieveitisinfeasibletostaybelow1.5°Cor2°C,pointingtoadditionalreasonsfortheiropposition.Wereturntothisinthedetailedanalysisthatfollows.

WedoamoredetailedexplorationofthereasoningforandagainsteachtypeofresearchbyreferringtotheindividualFCMsandinterviewdiscussions.Westructurethisanalysisaroundthethreescenariospresentedattheinterviews:(a)anincreaseinin-labSGresearch,(b)anincreaseinsmall-scalefieldSGresearch