that the threat of climate engineering could spur emissions cuts. Hesitation Some environmental organizations (such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace) have been reluctant to endorse or oppose solar geoengineering, but are often more supportive of nature-based carbon dioxide removal projects, such as afforestation and peatland restoration. Interventions at large scale run a greater risk of unintended disruptions of natural systems, resulting in a dilemma that they such disruptions might be more damaging than the climate damage that they offset. Public perception A large 2018 study used an online survey to investigate public perceptions of six climate engineering methods in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Public awareness of climate engineering was low; less than a fifth of respondents reported prior knowledge. Perceptions of the six climate engineering methods proposed (three from the carbon dioxide removal group and three from the solar geoengineering group) were largely negative and frequently associated with attributes like 'risky', 'artificial' and 'unknown effects'. Carbon dioxide removal methods were preferred over solar geoengineering. Public perceptions were remarkably stable with only minor differences between the different countries in the surveys. History Several organizations have investigated climate engineering with a view to evaluating its potential, including the US Congress, the US National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the Royal Society, the UK Parliament, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IMechE report examined a small subset of proposed methods (air capture, urban albedo and algal-based capture techniques), and its main conclusions were that climate engineering should be researched and trialed at the small scale alongside a wider decarbonization of the economy. The Royal Society review examined a wide range of proposed climate engineering methods and evaluated them in terms of effectiveness, affordability, timeliness, and safety (assigning qualitative estimates in each assessment). The key recommendations reports were that "Parties to the UNFCCC should make increased efforts towards mitigating and adapting to climate change, and in particular to agreeing to global emissions reductions", and that "[nothing] now known about geoengineering options gives any reason to diminish these efforts". Nonetheless, the report also recommended that "research and development of climate engineering options should be undertaken to investigate whether low-risk methods can be made available if it becomes necessary to reduce the rate of warming this century". In 2009, a review examined the scientific plausibility of proposed methods rather than the