Despite what it may look like on X, a majority of U.S. adults trust what scientists say about the environment.

That trust, however, may be shaky. According to research by the Political Psychology Research Group at Stanford University, the percentage of Americans who say they trust scientists on the environment has declined to 67% this year from 75% in 2020. In 2023, the Pew Research Center found that U.S. adults rated climate scientists’ understanding of the causes and solutions lower than in 2021.

Decarbonizing the global economy is an enormous challenge, and arguments against clean energy and electric vehicles have shown already how distrust can derail climate solutions — or at least hinder a speedy rollout. The issue of public trust is particularly salient as scientists seek to scale technologies designed to clean up the mess made by the burning of fossil fuels: excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The sixth assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes that: “The deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to counterbalance hard-to-abate residual emissions is unavoidable if net-zero CO2 or GHG emissions are to be achieved.” Yet some methods used to remove greenhouse gas from the atmosphere and to achieve permanent geological storage may seem troubling or even downright unbelievable to the general public.

Unfortunately, carbon dioxide removal is often lumped together with even more contentious ideas like solar radiation management under the umbrella term “geoengineering.” Though both variants are interventions in the Earth’s climate system, there are key differences in both the science and ethics. Solar-based methods such as cloud brightening or stratospheric aerosol scattering — attempts to reflect more of the sun’s rays — are more like painkillers than cures, mitigating symptoms without addressing the cause. Utilizing carbon dioxide removal once emissions have been drastically reduced, however, is the only way we could feasibly reverse the damage we’ve done.

Concerns about carbon dioxide removal mainly stem from questions about its cumulative effects on the environment and public health. Some fears are rooted in a gut feeling: Ocean alkalinity enhancement, for example, involves adding an alkaline substance to water in order to speed up the ocean’s natural carbon cycle. Though ultimately it’s accelerating a natural process by adding widely used materials like limestone or magnesium hydroxide, the method runs counter to the narrative that we shouldn’t dump stuff into the ocean. No wonder folks are suspicious. Conversely, methods deemed closer to nature — such as planting trees — have greater public acceptance.

Other fears are based on past experience. Direct air capture (DAC) facilities use pipelines to transport the CO2 removed from ambient air to underground storage sites. But memories of the CO2 pipeline rupture in Satartia, Mississippi, are fresh — particularly in neighboring Louisiana, where one of the Department of Energy’s new DAC hubs, Project Cypress, will be located.

So how should this nascent industry seek to address these fears and build public trust? A number of startups are demonstrating best practices in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Direct community engagement is key. Lesley Matthews, senior stakeholder engagement manager at Climeworks AG, one of the developers of Louisiana’s DAC hub, told me that the company was reaching out to local mayors, emergency responders, community groups and faith-based organizations. There’s “a lot of skepticism,” says Matthews, including about whether underground carbon storage could affect groundwater, a vital resource in the state, and whether orphaned oil wells could be a pathway for CO2 leakage. The aim is not to dismiss these concerns, but to provide objective information about risks, benefits and safety procedures — for example, outlining what the company is doing to avoid pipeline ruptures.

Matthews also described scouring social media for misconceptions and getting informed on the entire process so that the Climeworks team could address any questions that come their way — even if they involve a part of the project outside their particular remit. Conversations should also go both ways. Erin Burns, executive director of climate NGO Carbon180, told me that questions that come up during community engagement can often drive research into new or understudied areas.

Community engagement is one of the requirements for funding under the U.S.’s DAC hubs and pilot CO2 removal credit purchasing programs, but for some it’s an essential part of the scaling process. Lithos Carbon Inc. and Mati Carbon PBC work with American farmers and smallholders in the Global South, respectively, to deploy enhanced weathering on their land. (The process involves spreading basalt dust on agricultural land, which then reacts with acid rain to form carbonates, removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The carbonates are then washed into rivers and the sea where they’re stored.)

Natural weathering already absorbs about 0.3% of global emissions; the aim is to give it a boost. Farmers are among the most skeptical group consumers in the world, explains Lithos co-founder and chief executive officer Mary Yap. Their soil is their livelihood, so they’re naturally suspicious about adding anything that may be harmful.

Both ventures win trust slowly, with field trials to demonstrate the benefits — Mati’s trials, for example, have demonstrated upticks in productivity and a reduced need for pest control. Lithos provides farmers with transparent information about the nutrients and elements within the basalt dust (most farmers go and test it themselves first anyway, Yap told me). Once that trust is won, though, it spreads like wildfire throughout farming communities. As Mati founder Shantanu Agarwal put it: “By season three, they’re coming through the door.”

Some startups may have a harder time building trust than others: Planetary Technologies, a Canadian company piloting ocean alkalinity enhancement in the U.S., U.K. and Canada, met a lot of community resistance in Cornwall, where it is conducting field trials.

A blog post by Senara Wilson Hodges, a St. Ives town councilor, on the campaign site Geoengineering Monitor makes it clear that the distrust stems partly from the company coming from elsewhere: “There is something about living in such close connection to a natural place that creates an emotional response when it is threatened, especially when that threat comes from people so remote and disconnected from the community.”

Planetary has held town hall meetings and had hundreds of additional conversations to address concerns, as well as enlisting a third-party organization to validate environmental safety and results. It’s also appointed a vice president of community relations whose focus will be to ensure the voices of coastal communities — including indigenous voices in Canada — are heard and addressed.

Meanwhile, CarbonRun, another Canadian alkalinity enhancement company which focuses on river restoration, had a different experience. Co-founder and chief technology officer Edmund Halfyard explained that they had good public acceptance because of a long-standing grassroots effort in Nova Scotia to restore rivers degraded by acid rain in the same way Scandinavia has done since the 1970s — by adding limestone. Backed by decades of scientific research and strong safety records, the company’s sourcing of limestone from a network of small, local producers embeds the benefits within the community and builds support that way.

The true benefits of carbon removal won’t be realized until we get close to net zero emissions, but trust grows slowly. If carbon removal is to play a role in fighting climate change in the future, the public will have to become acquainted with it today. While governments can support trust-building with strong regulation, those looking to scale up carbon removal efforts should reach out to the community as early as possible and ensure benefits are felt locally, while being transparent, honest and providing as much objective information as possible.

____

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Lara Williams is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering climate change.

_____

©2024 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com/opinion. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.