Removing carbon, governing deployment: public perceptions of industry and community roles in U.S. carbon dioxide removal policy

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides empirical evidence on public governance preferences for CDR, useful for scholars studying climate policy acceptance and stakeholder engagement.

🏢実務担当者:Highlights the importance of community consultation and public ownership in CDR project design, offering guidance for corporate sustainability teams.

🏛政策担当者:Emphasizes the need to address public concerns about cost and industry motives when designing CDR policies, and shows potential for cross-party support for fossil fuel nationalization.

Public perceptions of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) governance are likely to influence its potential as a climate mitigation strategy but remain underexplored. In a nationally representative survey experiment of 1,488 US adults, I examine attitudes towards CDR policy and implementation, focusing on governance preferences, perceived moral hazard, and the role of the fossil fuel industry. I find coherent public preferences for democratic, participatory, and publicly accountable governance, including local community control. Close to 90% of respondents indicated that CDR projects should at least consult with local communities, and 40% thought communities should own or have voting stakes in projects. Public ownership was favored over private ownership by a 2:1 margin. Messenger identity also significantly shapes CDR policy support. Endorsements fromenvironmental NGOs increase approval while fossil fuel company endorsements decrease it. Republicans show strong in-party effects: Republican sponsorship increases support for CDR policy among Republican respondents, but reduces overall support. If a moral hazard among political elites exists, the public shows little awareness of it; indeed, the public generally views CDR as a complementary climate strategy, expecting its enabling policies to decrease national fossil fuel use and increase renewable energy use. Public opinion on the role the fossil fuel industry should have in CDR implementation – if any – was deeply divided along partisan lines, though climate concern was a stronger predictor of industry (dis)trust than party identification alone. Fossil fuel nationalization as means to leverage industry expertise while exerting democratic control shows promise, with cross-party support. Qualitative analysis of open-ended responses reveals cost and misplaced financial responsibility as the most common concern, followed by doubts about CDR’s effectiveness and distrust towards industry profit motives. The most frequently cited benefit was direct job creation, followed by improved air quality, which most CDR strategies cannot promise. As CDR gains prominence in national climate strategies, this research underscores the importance of addressing public governance preferences in CDR policy development: prioritizing community engagement requirements, considering public ownership models, and ensuring CDR complements renewable energy deployment, rather than competing with it.

• openalex https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-026-04177-6first seen 2026-05-30 04:40:30 · last seen 2026-05-31 05:17:04