Global efforts to curb climate change are increasingly focused on carbon dioxide removal and low-carbon energy solutions, but according to a new two-part study published in collaboration with faculty at the Paul H. O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs shows that the extent to which the public views a climate technology as aligned with natural processes dramatically influences whether they support its widespread deployment.
The paper, “Naturalness catalyzes public support for carbon dioxide removal and low-carbon energy technologies,” was published in the journal Communications Earth & Environment and was led by Dr. Sarah Gonzalez-Coffin, a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Arizona. Professor Shahzeen Attari from the O’Neill School collaborated on the report. Researchers conducted two comprehensive studies of U.S. adults, evaluated public attitudes toward six carbon dioxide removal approaches and four low-carbon energy technologies. In the initial observational study, participants who perceived technologies as more natural demonstrated significantly stronger support. These individuals judged natural-seeming technologies as less risky, less frightening, and far more beneficial to society.
“Public acceptance isn’t just about efficiency or technical cost,” Gonzalez-Coffin said. “It’s deeply rooted in how natural a solution seems. When people view climate change technologies as working with nature instead of against it, support quickly climbs. Understanding this psychological connection to nature allows us to communicate climate technologies far more effectively and build bipartisan momentum for climate action.”
To test whether public perception could be actively influenced, the authors conducted an experimental second study manipulating how technologies were framed. When climate solutions were introduced using natural analogies, participant support surged. By contrast, when the exact same technologies were analogized as artificial, participants evaluating “natural” descriptions perceived lower risks, greater overall benefits, and felt markedly more positive emotions toward the technologies.
“The study also showed that the naturalness effect holds broad appeal across the political spectrum,” Attari said. “Individual political ideology did not moderate the influence of natural framing, indicating that highlighting natural characteristics can build consensus among both conservative and liberal audiences. The effect was particularly pronounced among individuals who expressed a stronger aversion to ‘tampering with nature’.”
The research offers an actionable roadmap for policymakers, clean-tech developers, investors, and climate communicators. By emphasizing biological, organic, and natural mechanics in technology design and public messaging, stakeholders can foster greater public trust and accelerate the deployment of critical decarbonization solutions.
Other collaborators on this article include Leaf Van Boven (University of Colorado Boulder), Holly Buck (University at Buffalo), Amanda R. Carrico (University of Colorado Boulder), Yoel Inbar (University of Toronto Scarborough), Ezra Markowitz (University of Massachusetts Amherst), Kaitlin T. Raimi (University of Michigan), and Jonathon P. Schuldt (Cornell University), and Trisha Shrum (University of Vermont).