Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) Technology Public Forums and Application to Governance Frameworks

Program Areas – Responsible Innovation, Sustainability, Science and Technology Policy, Education and Engagement

Preliminary Results Briefing

The Boston and Vancouver forums offer a chance to explore and compare informed and deliberated public opinions on climate remediation, with a specific focus on CDR technology research and governance. Across both forums, 113 participants engaged in discussions to explore climate solutions, evaluate carbon removal technologies, and consider governance frameworks for potential adoption. A few consistent patterns emerged across the forums.

Participants approached climate solutions through a portfolio perspective

Across multiple exercises, participants consistently emphasized the importance of pursuing multiple climate solutions simultaneously rather than relying on any single approach. Participants also emphasized that climate solutions should be customized for specific geographic and social contexts. 

The results suggest that participants favored a multi-pronged system-level approach at the national level, implemented through regionally, economically, and socially suitable solutions.

Environmental impacts were a central concern when evaluating climate technologies

Across both forums, participants consistently assessed climate solutions based on their potential environmental impacts. In discussions about energy technologies, participants often raised concerns regarding resource inputs, land use, infrastructure needs, and waste.

• For Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE), concerns most often focus on impacts on marine ecosystems and uncertainties about changing ocean chemistry. Participants frequently described OAE as an intervention in complex environmental systems and stressed the need for thorough research before large-scale deployment.
• For Direct Air Capture with Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS), concerns more often relate to energy demand, infrastructure size, and resource use. Participants often described DACCS as an industrial system whose impacts depend on energy sources and technological scalability.

These discussions indicate that participants often evaluated climate technologies from a systems perspective, considering environmental impacts alongside technical performance.

Unknown effects were the most important governance consideration for CDR

When participants were asked to rank considerations for CDR governance, unknown effects were identified as the highest priority in both forums. Participants often said that decisions about CDR should only be made when backed by solid scientific evidence and high confidence in the results.

These results indicate that participants want more research into CDR technologies and their environmental, economic, and social impacts to address deployment concerns.

Participants prioritized adaptation and emissions reduction over carbon removal

When participants created climate remediation plans, they consistently dedicated the most resources to adaptation strategies, followed by energy system solutions. Across both forums:

• Adaptation to climate change received the largest investment.
• Carbon dioxide removal attracted the least investment.

Participants often justified these choices by emphasizing the need to address immediate and tangible climate impacts, such as water access, agricultural resilience, and heat adaptation. Within the carbon removal category, participants generally preferred nature-based methods, such as forestation and wetland restoration, over technological options like DACCS and OAE.

These results indicate that participants were eager to proceed with known, proven, and effective solutions to climate change

Participants expressed conditional support for carbon removal technologies

Although there was relatively low investment in carbon removal during the remediation planning process, participants did not completely reject CDR technologies. Instead, participants often expressed conditional support. Participants often described CDR technologies as part of a larger climate mitigation portfolio rather than as standalone solutions.

These perspectives suggest that participants saw CDR as solutions that might be needed in the long run, requiring more research and evaluation, but in proportion to the urgent need for immediate climate action involving known and proven remediation strategies.

Institutional trust played a central role in governance preferences

When participants assessed governance arrangements for hypothetical CDR projects, they consistently showed more trust in public, academic, and independent institutions than in private industry. Indigenous communities and affected stakeholders were also frequently identified as important contributors to governance processes. In contrast, private companies and industry players were consistently viewed as some of the least trusted institutions for managing carbon removal projects.

These results show that, at this stage of CDR development, which is characterized by high uncertainty, participants trust government, university, and community-led research and development efforts more than private efforts, which were seen as primarily motivated by market and profit incentives.

Geographic context influenced emphasis but not overall patterns

Although Boston and Vancouver participants sometimes highlighted different aspects of climate solutions and carbon removal technologies, the overall patterns seen in the forums were generally consistent. Boston discussions more frequently emphasized governance structures and institutional oversight, while Vancouver discussions more often highlighted environmental systems and ecological impacts.

These findings suggest that shared concerns about climate change solutions beyond national borders can be approached differently depending on the region’s geography and political economy.

Overall Observation

Taken together, the Boston and Vancouver forums reveal that participants approached climate technologies in a nuanced and thoughtful manner. Instead of focusing only on technological performance, participants often considered how different solutions interact with environmental systems, social institutions, and governance frameworks.

These findings indicate that participatory technology assessment offers valuable insights into how the public thinks about emerging climate technologies when they are given chances for structured discussion and informed deliberation.

To explore the the materials and data sets below, click on the section you want to see, hover your mouse over the slide, and click to advance to next slide. 

Preliminary Results Graphs