@article {dai_elicitation_2021,
	title = {Elicitation of US and Chinese expert judgments show consistent views on solar geoengineering},
	journal = {Humanities and Social Sciences Communications},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2021},
	note = {Number: 1 Publisher: Palgrave},
	pages = {1{\textendash}9},
	abstract = {Expert judgments on solar geoengineering (SG) inform policy decisions and influence public opinions. We performed face-to-face interviews using formal expert elicitation methods with 13 US and 13 Chinese climate experts randomly selected from IPCC authors or supplemented by snowball sampling. We compare their judgments on climate change, SG research, governance, and deployment. In contrast to existing literature that often stress factors that might differentiate China from western democracies on SG, we found few significant differences between quantitative judgments of US and Chinese experts. US and Chinese experts differed on topics, such as desired climate scenario and the preferred venue for international regulation of SG, providing some insight into divergent judgments that might shape future negotiations about SG policy. We also gathered closed-form survey results from 19 experts with \textgreater10 publications on SG. Both expert groups supported greatly increased research, recommending SG research funding of \textasciitilde5\% on average (10th{\textendash}90th percentile range was 1{\textendash}10\%) of climate science budgets compared to actual budgets of \textless0.3\% in 2018. Climate experts chose far less SG deployment in future climate policies than did SG experts.},
	keywords = {Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, peer reviewed, Public Policy, Solar Geoengineering},
	issn = {2662-9992},
	doi = {10.1057/s41599-020-00694-6},
	url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00694-6},
	author = {Zhen Dai and Burns, Elizabeth T. and Peter J. Irvine and Dustin H. Tingley and Jianhua Xu and David W. Keith}
}
