Fast,cheap, and imperfect? US public opinion about solar geoengineering

ABSTRACT

Solar geoengineering, which seeks to cool the planet by reflecting a small fraction of sunlight back into space, has drawn the attention of scientists and policymakers as climate change remains unabated. Unlike mitigation, solar geoengineering could quickly and cheaply lower global temperatures. It is also imperfect. Its environmental impacts remain unpredictable, and its low cost and immediate effects may result in ‘moral hazard,’ potentially crowding out costly mitigation efforts. There is little understanding about how the public will respond to such tradeoffs. To address this, a 1000-subject nationally representative poll focused on solar geoengineering was conducted as part of the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) of the US electorate in October–November 2016. The importance that individuals place on solar geoengineering’s speed and cost predicts their support for it, but there is little to no relationship between their concerns about its shortcomings and support for its research and use. Acquiescence bias appears to be an important factor for attitudes around solar geoengineering and moral hazard.     

A review of the likely causal pathways relating the reduced density of breeding dippers Cinclus cinclus to the acidification of upland streams

Previous work has shown that the breeding density of a bird characteristic of upland streams, the dipper Cinclus cinclus, is markedly reduced at low pH in both Wales and Scotland. Populations also declined when streams became more acidic. Evidence of causal explanation for these relationships is that: (1) Food quantity is reduced in acidic streams, and important prey, including those rich in calcium, are scarce; (2) Blood chemistry in pre-breeding birds differs between acid and circumneutral streams, with plasma calcium reduced in those breeding at low pH. Skeletal sources of calcium are probably limited; (3) The time spent foraging by pre-breeding birds on acidic streams is markedly increased, even though overall energy costs on acidic and circumneutral streams are similar. Body condition is inferior to birds on circumneutral streams; (4) Egg laying is significantly delayed on acidic streams irrespective of an effect on laying of altitude, and clutch and brood sizes are significantly reduced; (5) Eggs are lighter and shells thinner at low pH; (6) Chick growth is reduced at low pH; (7) Contamination by heavy metals and persistent organochlorines is low in the populations on acidic streams and cannot explain the impaired breeding performance. None of these features can exclude the possibilities that acidic streams either hold populations of poor quality birds, which show the above features, or that acidity affects the breeding ecology of all dippers that attempt to breed at low pH. The qualitative outcome of these two alternatives is identical.