Public Perceptions of Climate Technologies: Insights from 22 Countries

Redacción HC
24/09/2025

Climate change is no longer an abstract threat—it is a lived reality for millions of people worldwide. Yet the debate over how best to confront it extends far beyond cutting emissions. Emerging technologies such as large-scale carbon removal and even solar radiation management (SRM)—which aims to cool the planet by reflecting sunlight—have entered the global conversation. But how do ordinary citizens perceive these controversial solutions?

A new international study provides a detailed picture of public attitudes toward these technologies and shows how personal experiences with climate impacts, levels of concern, and trust in science shape the willingness to support or reject them.

Mapping Public Opinion Across 22 Countries

Researchers surveyed 22,222 people across 22 countries—spanning both the Global North and South—and held 44 focus groups with 323 participants. Their goal: to understand how beliefs about climate change influence support for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and SRM technologies.

The survey presented participants with short descriptions and simple illustrations of 10 climate technologies. These ranged from nature-based approaches such as afforestation, soil carbon sequestration and blue carbon restoration, to “novel” methods like direct air capture with carbon storage (DACCS) and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and three SRM concepts including stratospheric aerosol injection.

Key factors measured included belief in climate change, level of personal worry, experience with climate-related disasters, and perception of personal harm. The main outcome: whether participants supported “wider deployment” of each technology.

Nature-Based Solutions Win Broad Support

Across all countries, nature-based strategies—such as planting forests or enhancing soil carbon—received the strongest endorsement. These approaches were widely viewed as familiar, low-risk, and offering local co-benefits such as improved biodiversity and air quality.

By contrast, support for high-tech options such as DACCS, BECCS, and especially SRM was more uneven. People in the Global South generally expressed greater openness to these novel technologies, while citizens in many Global North nations showed deeper skepticism.

Notably, countries like Turkey and the Dominican Republic reported more than 90% of respondents expecting to be personally affected by climate impacts, whereas only 28% of Norwegians shared that view. Higher perceived personal harm and stronger climate worry were clear predictors of support—particularly for riskier technologies such as SRM and engineered CDR.

Narratives That Shape Public Debate

Focus group discussions revealed three recurring tensions:

• “Buying time vs. delaying action.” Some participants saw these technologies as a way to buy time for reducing emissions. Others feared they would become an excuse to postpone decarbonization—a phenomenon known as mitigation deterrence.
• “Treating symptoms vs. curing causes.” SRM was frequently described as a “band-aid” solution, addressing the symptom (planetary heating) without tackling root causes (greenhouse gas emissions).
• Temporal scale and risk. Concerns arose over how long it would take for technologies to deliver benefits and the uncertainty of long-term side effects.

From these conversations, the authors identified three broad transformation pathways: behavior-driven change, top-down industrial measures, and technology-dependent futures. Citizens’ identification with these narratives strongly influenced whether they viewed a given technology as complementary, dangerous, or irrelevant.

Policy Lessons: Building Trust and Credibility

The findings carry important implications for policymakers. Public support for both CDR and SRM hinges on embedding these technologies within credible, transparent decarbonization strategies. The authors recommend:

• Clearly separating emission reduction targets from carbon removal goals.
• Implementing rigorous monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) standards.
• Prioritizing technologies with clear local co-benefits, such as improved air quality or enhanced livelihoods, to strengthen acceptance in emerging economies.
• Designing inclusive governance processes and communicating risks and benefits openly.

The researchers caution that public familiarity with many of these technologies remains low. Deliberative experiments and ongoing dialogue are essential to ensure citizens understand the potential benefits and risks.

Conclusion: Dialogue Is as Critical as Technology

This study underscores a crucial reality: innovation alone will not determine our climate future. Public perceptions—shaped by personal experience, trust in science, and cultural narratives—are equally decisive.

Should humanity “vacuum” carbon out of the sky with machines or rely primarily on forests and natural systems? Is solar radiation management a temporary lifeline or a dangerous distraction? The answers will depend not only on scientific feasibility but also on how societies collectively imagine and debate their climate future.

Topics of interest

Climate