Abstract:
International and national forums recognize that Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is required to meet climate targets. Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) is still considered controversial and would not address the causes of climate change, but some experts suggest it might soon become necessary. Canada has begun incentivizing some CDR, while noting that others, as well as SRM will require more research and regulation. CDR and SRM remain largely unfamiliar to the public, presenting a critical window for proactive, inclusive, and trust-building engagement. Understanding how public support is developed, maintained, or lost is essential to shaping responsible and durable policy frameworks.

Summary of Conversations 

The discussion explored the necessity of effective public engagement regarding emerging technologies, with a focus on geoengineering methods like carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation modification. Panelists discussed public engagement from their perspectives, highlighting some lessons learned from their diverse experiences studying and working in the geoengineering space. A key theme was the challenge of establishing and maintaining public trust, which may be hindered by pre-existing opinions or beliefs. Participants emphasized that developers and researchers should be open and transparent when communicating about emerging technologies, including information related to uncertainty, risks and mitigation strategies.. It was noted that the timing of public engagement is also important, and that communities should feel involved in conversations even before projects start, and receive ongoing communication throughout the process. Panellists also highlighted that, depending on the scale of the project, these technologies can struggle to gain local buy-in if there is not clear alignment between the proposed projects and community priorities or values.

Take Away Messages/Current Status of Challenges 

• Distrust in Science: Some communities may have a pre-existing level of mistrust towards researchers and developers, which can lead to skepticism about the motives or intentions of public engagement activities/forums.
• Influence of Pre-existing Beliefs: Members of the public may perceive the same information in very different ways, depending on pre-existing beliefs, narratives, frameworks, or biases, which requires those engaging with the public to acknowledge and navigate these differing perspectives.
• Framing of Local Benefits: Due to the potentially large scale and long timelines of emerging technologies such as geoengineering, it can be challenging to  to secure local community support if the benefits to the community are not made clear (noting that, in some cases, the benefits to the community may be in the form of risk reduction or mitigation)
• Potential or Perceived Risks to Valued Assets: For projects requiring the use of privately-owned and/or community-held, resources, such as a farmer’s land, the potential risks or uncertainty to the individual/community can create  significant engagement difficulty, especially when the project’s benefits are long-term or difficult to quantify.
• Difficulty Balancing Technical Depth and Trust:  Transparent communication of information in a way that the audience understands is essential – providing too much technical information can overwhelm the audience, yet failing to be realistic about risks or uncertainties can swiftly erode any foundational trust.
• Engagement Fatigue: Communities, particularly Indigenous communities, experience significant engagement fatigue due to being repeatedly approached by different researchers and developers for fragmented, uncoordinated projects.
• Overestimating Uniqueness: While there are some unique elements to geoengineering, overestimating this uniqueness can prevent the research community from learning valuable lessons from previous public engagement practices related to other large  technology or infrastructure projects (e.g., pipelines or hydro dams).

Recommendations/Next Steps

• Encourage Early and Accountable Engagement: Initiate engagement at the earliest stages of research design, create safe spaces for dialogue,  and link engagement to clear community outcomes through co-development and accountability.
• Implement Open and transparent communications: Use open data sharing to communicate uncertainties and counter misinformation, and ensure that messaging is consistent, coherent, and continuing, even when tailored to different audiences.
• Develop Repeatable Engagement Frameworks: Develop broader, coordinated, and repeatable processes for engagement to prevent duplication and engagement fatigue.
• Explain purpose and process: Clearly state why engagement matters, how input will be used, and be prepared to address questions about scope, impacts, and long term implications and benefits
• Tailor Messaging for Local Audience: Tailor information to audience understanding, and wherever possible use plain language to draw clear linkages between project outcomes and community needs and priorities.
• Include Risk Mitigation Plans: When discussing technological and environmental risks and potential failures, proactively prepare and share plans for risk minimization and mitigation, including procedures for cleanup, as this builds trust by demonstrating foresight.
• Enable responsible innovation without unrealistic barriers: Adopt regulatory approaches that recognize trade-offs while maintaining accountability; implement early, balanced oversight to foster confidence and prevent reputational harm while supporting innovation.