The Paris Agreement makes the assumption that in order to achieve a 2oC scenario it will be necessary to deploy negative emission technologies (NETs) or carbon dioxide removal techniques (CDRs). The inclusion of negative emissions are assumed despite the fact that they are not utilised, and are certainly not deployed on the global scale which would require a large area of land, energy and other resources. Public perceptions research has already shown that geoengineering produces a ‘messing with nature’ narrative with less support for SRM methods than CDR methods. When taking only CDR into consideration it is clear that different techniques produce different results and feelings. The main aim of the project is to explore public perceptions and acceptability of CDR technologies with a specific focus on enhanced weathering. This technology involves crushing and spreading minerals over land to absorb carbon dioxide with materials eventually ending up in the ocean thus removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. A survey was conducted online in three countries; UK, USA and Australia to provide a baseline measure of risk perceptions and also allow for comparisons to be drawn between people in each country. We first asked questions around knowledge and acceptability of CDRs with the second part establishing what climate change perceptions are held by the participants. We aimed to survey a cross-national sample of 1000 people aged at least 18 in each country. It is hypothesised that there will be more support for technologies that are seen as more ‘natural’ such as deforestation with less support for technologies seen as more industrial (e.g. enhanced weathering). There will also be low levels of awareness or knowledge around these technologies across all three countries however those who have a stronger pro-environmental identity are expected to be generally more supportive of CDRs. In this paper we will explore a range of findings to assess how the UK, US and Australia differ in their support and acceptance of CDRs and what this may mean for the assumptions made in the Paris Agreement.