Valeria Sorgato, University of Geneva

We are constantly told we need urgent action on climate change. Modellers propose a vast portfolio of solutions to policy-makers, from large-scale tree planting to carbon removal technologies, to reach net-zero emissions by the end of the century. But will people accept these solutions? They may look brilliant on paper and in modelling reports, but in practice, they can fail to succeed if the public rejects them. To project more realistic futures, modellers must therefore consider public acceptance.

A recent survey involving citizens from Spain, Italy, France, Poland, the Netherlands, and Germany measured public acceptance of five key solutions used in climate mitigation models. The results revealed that climate solutions are generally accepted, and acceptance is mainly driven by people’s climate change beliefs. However, differences between countries and solutions emerged. Participants clearly preferred nature-based solutions like afforestation/reforestation, which received high acceptance. In contrast, Europeans’ acceptance of engineered solutions like Bioenergy with Carbon Capture (BECCS) was lower – a key consideration for modellers who rely heavily on BECCS to build net-zero emissions pathways. The behavioural shift to a more sustainable diet was the least popular solution and was even rejected by Polish and Dutch participants. These findings highlight the importance of considering country-specific attitudes in modelling climate mitigation, as a solution accepted in one country may be opposed in another.

Recognizing that the future potential of these solutions is uncertain, the study also tested how people’s acceptance is affected after learning about this uncertainty. While informing participants about the solution’s uncertainty lowered acceptance, on average, all proposed solutions remained accepted, showing resilience to the information. However, the feeling of uncertainty itself did matter. Specifically, people who felt more uncertain about the solutions’ technological (can it scale and work reliably?) and social feasibility (will others accept and comply?) were less accepting. These results highlight that for a solution to succeed, it must not only be technically sound but also be perceived as socially and politically viable.

This study was part of the PRISMA project and contributes to the project’s aim in helping modellers build more realistic and socially viable net-zero emission pathways.

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash.

This news is part of a project that has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe programme under grant agreement No 101081604 – PRISMA. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the speaker(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

Follow PRISMA’s outcomes and results on social media, via the #net0prisma