A Reflexive Approach to Designing Small-Group Deliberation on Carbon Dioxide Removal: Integrating Public, Expert Stakeholder, and Scholarly Perspectives

Abstract

It is no longer enough only to reduce our global greenhouse gas emissions if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must also be drawn down and stored long-term through various methods broadly referred to as carbon dioxide removal (CDR). However, there are rarely clear-cut answers when making ethical and just decisions about CDR, which is in part due to past and ongoing environmental and public health harms on disadvantaged communities in the US. Small-group deliberation is one tool for making decisions about CDR that has garnered significant attention from researchers and practitioners. Yet, there is little guidance from deliberation theory for successfully facilitating public deliberations in the context of CDR decision-making. I chip away at this practical and theoretical issue by first using survey data to explore if US voters are interested in participating in CDR decision-making, particularly through small-group deliberation and explore potential predictors of such interest. I then use interview data collected with members of the US public and expert stakeholders to investigate their views about the optimal goals and features of small-group deliberation about CDR. Finally, I compared these public and expert stakeholder perspectives with prior discussions in the literature. I found the majority of survey respondents agree that members of the public should have a say in decisions about the research, development, and use of carbon dioxide removal options, and most participants were interested in participating by learning more about CDR options, voting for a candidate that shares their views, or being surveyed or interviewed about the issue, although a minority (29%) were interested in participating in small-group deliberation. The predictors of interest in participating in CDR decision-making included leaning more toward the Global Warming’s Six Americas’ ‘Alarmed’ audience segment, thinking carbon dioxide is not a major contributor to global warming, thinking the federal government should prioritize CDR options other than both technological and natural CDR solutions, support for CDR-related policies, being younger, and being male. Further, interest in participating in CDR decision-making via small-group deliberation was predicted by support for CDR-related policies. Public interview participants described the ideal features that should occur in CDR small-group deliberation through four main themes: (1) including and elevating vital, yet typically unheard, voices in the deliberation so their perspectives can be considered in decision-making, (2) interacting face-to-face with people in positions of decision-making power during the deliberation to help translate participant perspectives into action, (3) offering educational information about the deliberation itself and CDR so participants feel comfortable with and empowered to form and share their opinions on the topic, and setting communication standards to ensure each participant has the opportunity to share their perspective. Complementarily, expert stakeholder interviews felt the ideal features include: (1) ensuring participants have an opportunity to share their perspective; (2) occurring primarily at the community level, rather than the public level; and (3) happening early and often in a CDR project’s or issue’s lifecycle. Public interview participants felt the goals of these deliberations should be to (1) raise public awareness of carbon dioxide removal and environmental issues generally, (2) inspire sustained community action on environmental issues, and (3) achieve a cleaner physical environment. Additionally, expert stakeholder interviews saw the goals as (1) a mutual exchange of information between publics and other stakeholders and (2) decisions about CDR that are responsive to community values and needs. One of the most valuable theoretical and practical insights that emerged from comparing the various components of this dissertation was how taking a reflexive approach to uncover the desires of prospective participants and users of a small-group deliberation in a specific policy context yields nuanced insights that complement what is said in theory. Particularly insightful in this study are the findings around community-level engagement and the meaning of education. Overall, this study addresses a gap between deliberation theory and practice, offering guidance on facilitating small-group deliberations in the unique policy context of CDR decision-making, and demonstrating a way to help reflexivity design a small-group deliberation.