Elicitation of US and Chinese expert judgments show consistent views on solar geoengineering
Abstract Expert judgments on solar geoengineering (SG) inform policy decisions and influence public opinions. We performed face-to-face interviews using formal expert elicitation methods with 13 US and 13 Chinese climate experts randomly selected from IPCC authors or supplemented by snowball samplin...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Springer Nature
2021-01-01
|
| Series: | Humanities & Social Sciences Communications |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00694-6 |
| _version_ | 1818942317749338112 |
|---|---|
| author | Zhen Dai Elizabeth T. Burns Peter J. Irvine Dustin H. Tingley Jianhua Xu David W. Keith |
| author_facet | Zhen Dai Elizabeth T. Burns Peter J. Irvine Dustin H. Tingley Jianhua Xu David W. Keith |
| author_sort | Zhen Dai |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Expert judgments on solar geoengineering (SG) inform policy decisions and influence public opinions. We performed face-to-face interviews using formal expert elicitation methods with 13 US and 13 Chinese climate experts randomly selected from IPCC authors or supplemented by snowball sampling. We compare their judgments on climate change, SG research, governance, and deployment. In contrast to existing literature that often stress factors that might differentiate China from western democracies on SG, we found few significant differences between quantitative judgments of US and Chinese experts. US and Chinese experts differed on topics, such as desired climate scenario and the preferred venue for international regulation of SG, providing some insight into divergent judgments that might shape future negotiations about SG policy. We also gathered closed-form survey results from 19 experts with >10 publications on SG. Both expert groups supported greatly increased research, recommending SG research funding of ~5% on average (10th–90th percentile range was 1–10%) of climate science budgets compared to actual budgets of <0.3% in 2018. Climate experts chose far less SG deployment in future climate policies than did SG experts. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-20T07:09:31Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e9a58e2246b046f89ee388cb6a099bd5 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2662-9992 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-20T07:09:31Z |
| publishDate | 2021-01-01 |
| publisher | Springer Nature |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Humanities & Social Sciences Communications |
| spelling | doaj.art-e9a58e2246b046f89ee388cb6a099bd52022-12-21T19:48:57ZengSpringer NatureHumanities & Social Sciences Communications2662-99922021-01-01811910.1057/s41599-020-00694-6Elicitation of US and Chinese expert judgments show consistent views on solar geoengineeringZhen Dai0Elizabeth T. Burns1Peter J. Irvine2Dustin H. Tingley3Jianhua Xu4David W. Keith5John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard UniversityJohn A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard UniversityJohn A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard UniversityGovernment Department, Harvard UniversityCollege of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Peking UniversityJohn A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard UniversityAbstract Expert judgments on solar geoengineering (SG) inform policy decisions and influence public opinions. We performed face-to-face interviews using formal expert elicitation methods with 13 US and 13 Chinese climate experts randomly selected from IPCC authors or supplemented by snowball sampling. We compare their judgments on climate change, SG research, governance, and deployment. In contrast to existing literature that often stress factors that might differentiate China from western democracies on SG, we found few significant differences between quantitative judgments of US and Chinese experts. US and Chinese experts differed on topics, such as desired climate scenario and the preferred venue for international regulation of SG, providing some insight into divergent judgments that might shape future negotiations about SG policy. We also gathered closed-form survey results from 19 experts with >10 publications on SG. Both expert groups supported greatly increased research, recommending SG research funding of ~5% on average (10th–90th percentile range was 1–10%) of climate science budgets compared to actual budgets of <0.3% in 2018. Climate experts chose far less SG deployment in future climate policies than did SG experts.https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00694-6 |
| spellingShingle | Zhen Dai Elizabeth T. Burns Peter J. Irvine Dustin H. Tingley Jianhua Xu David W. Keith Elicitation of US and Chinese expert judgments show consistent views on solar geoengineering Humanities & Social Sciences Communications |
| title | Elicitation of US and Chinese expert judgments show consistent views on solar geoengineering |
| title_full | Elicitation of US and Chinese expert judgments show consistent views on solar geoengineering |
| title_fullStr | Elicitation of US and Chinese expert judgments show consistent views on solar geoengineering |
| title_full_unstemmed | Elicitation of US and Chinese expert judgments show consistent views on solar geoengineering |
| title_short | Elicitation of US and Chinese expert judgments show consistent views on solar geoengineering |
| title_sort | elicitation of us and chinese expert judgments show consistent views on solar geoengineering |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00694-6 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT zhendai elicitationofusandchineseexpertjudgmentsshowconsistentviewsonsolargeoengineering AT elizabethtburns elicitationofusandchineseexpertjudgmentsshowconsistentviewsonsolargeoengineering AT peterjirvine elicitationofusandchineseexpertjudgmentsshowconsistentviewsonsolargeoengineering AT dustinhtingley elicitationofusandchineseexpertjudgmentsshowconsistentviewsonsolargeoengineering AT jianhuaxu elicitationofusandchineseexpertjudgmentsshowconsistentviewsonsolargeoengineering AT davidwkeith elicitationofusandchineseexpertjudgmentsshowconsistentviewsonsolargeoengineering |